asked Her Majesty's Government:How many appeals against refusal of entry clearance for settlement were referred to an adjudicator in 1981, how many such appeals were disposed of, and how many were allowed, dismissed, withdrawn and are waiting a hearing respectively.

The appellate authorities have provided the following information for the period from 1st January to 30th November 1981, the latest date for which figures are available.

asked Her Majesty's Government:How many immigration appeals were referred to the appellate authorities in 1980 and 1981, how many such appeals were disposed of, and what were the arrears in terms of cases and of individuals at 31st December 1980 and 1981 respectively.

The appellate authorities have provided the following information for 1980 and the period from 1st January to 30th November 1981, the latest date for which figures are available.The information relating to appeals by individuals to adjudicators is:

	Referred	Disposals	Arrears
1980	16,116	16,561	15,884
Jan-Nov 1981	13,195	16,820	12,266

The number of cases (where one case may involve several related appeals) outstanding at the end of 1980 and at the end of November 1981 were 8,316 and 6,133 respectively.The information relating to cases referred to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is:

Cases brought by immigrants (Appeals at first instance or against adjudicators' decisions)
	Referred	Disposals	Arrears
1980	514	392	261
Jan-Nov 1981	536	475	307

Cases brought by the Home Office against adjudicators'decisions
	Referred	Disposals	Arrears
1980	105	87	44
Jan-Nov 1981	74	93	36

Information about the number of appeals by individuals to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is not available.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What was the average delay at the end of 1981 between receipt of the explanatory statement and first date given for hearing at each centre for hearing immigration appeals.

The appellate authorities have provided the following information on the listing of cases at each centre at the end of 1981:

Centre	Appeals where the appellant is in the United Kingdom	Appeals where the appellant is outside the United Kingdom
Thanet House	2½ months	2½ months
Harmondsworth	2 months	3 months
Dover	2½ months	2 months
Birmingham	2 months	12 months
Leeds and North	2 months	4 months
Manchester and Belfast	3 months	2 months
Gatwick	4 months	4 months
Southampton and West	2 months	2 months

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will state the number of immigration appeals referred to adjudicators and the manner of their disposal in 1980 and 1981, broken down into the following categories; exclusion (port appeals), exclusion (appeals from abroad), refusal of certificate of patriality, refusal of entry clearance, variation of leave to enter, refusal to vary leave to enter, duration or conditions etc., decision to make deportation order, refusal to revoke deportation order, giving of removal directions, destination only.

The appellate authorities have provided the following information for 1980 and for the period from 1st January to 30th November 1981, which is the latest date for which figures are available.

	Year	Referred	Allowed	Dismissed	Withdrawn	No jurisdiction
Exclusion (Port Appeals	1980	206	24	99	92	1
	1981	166	11	97	48	1
Exclusion (Appeals from abroad)	1980	1,227	42	995	140	9
	1981	554	53	831	131	1
Refusal of certificate on pattriality	1980	52	3	21	Nil	Nil
	1981	26	4	19	16	Nil
Refusal of entry clearance	1980	9,312	1,735	6,069	2,106	2
	1981	7,544	1,800	6,677	1,974	1
Variation of leave to enter	1980	115	2	44	33	Nil
	1981	80	Nil	69	36	Nil
Refusal to vary leave of entry	1980	4,521	171	2,639	1,653	43
	1981	4,388	172	2,698	1,607	21
Duration or conditions of leave to remain	1980	19	1	15	7	Nil
	1981	42	1	15	5	Nil
Decision to make deportation order	1980	427	27	310	75	2
	1981	244	19	232	47	1
Refusal to revoke deportation order	1980	29	Nil	23	5	Nil
	1981	20	Nil	25	4	Nil
Giving of removal directions	1980	153	Nil	107	11	1
	1981	64	Nil	116	14	Nil
Destination only	1980	55	2	39	13	Nil
	1981	67	Nil	49	24	1
Totals:
1980	16,116		2,007	10,361	4,135	58
1981(1st Jan. 30th Nov.)	13,195		2,060	10,828	3,906	26

asked Her Majesty's Government:What was the average delay at the end of 1981 between receipt of notice of appeal and dispatch of explanatory statement to the immigration appellate authorities at the Home Office and at overseas posts at:

The average delay was about eight months at the Home Office and at Bombay, and about three months at other posts. The information available does not distinguish between types of cases, but it is thought that there is little difference in the average time taken to produce explanatory statements in settlement and other cases.

asked Her Majesty's Government:How many full-time and part-time members of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and adjudicators there were at the end of 1979, 1980 and 1981 and what was the total number of hours for which they were paid in each of those years.

The number of full-time and part-time members of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and adjudicators at the end of 1979, 1980 and 1981 was as follows:

	Tribunal		Adjudicators
	Full-time	Part-time	Full-time	Parr-time
1979	3	26	19	28
1980	3	26	18	60
1981	3	26	16	63

The conditions of service of full-time members of the tribunal and adjudicators require them to work 41 hours each week in London and 42 hours elsewhere. I regret that information on the number of hours worked by part-time members of the tribunal and adjudicators could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

asked Her Majesty's Government:How many prisoners in England and Wales, who completed determinate sentences in 1981, were transferred to a special hospital instead of being released; what right of appeal a prisoner has against an order transferring him to a special hospital; and whether any changes are contemplated in these arrangements under the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill.

Fifteen prisoners serving determinate sentences were transferred to special hospitals in 1981 by direction of the Home Secretary under Section 72 of the Mental Health Act 1959. Two of these prisoners were transferred on the day on which they would otherwise have been released and one prisoner was transferred on the day before his release date.The Act prescribes no right of appeal against a transfer direction. After the transfer takes place there is provision for a transferred patient to apply to, or request that his case be referred to, a mental health review tribunal. The period within which such a patient is entitled to have his case considered by a tribunal and the ability of the tribunal either to order or recommend his discharge both depend on whether or not the Secretary of State has also made a restriction direction under Section 74 of the 1959 Act and on the expiry date of the original sentence of imprisonment. The Mental Health (Amendment) Bill proposes that a prisoner who is transferred to hospital with a restriction under Section 74 should cease to be subject to that direction on what would have been his earliest (rather than, as at present, his latest) date of release from prison. Amendments to the Bill which have been tabled by the Government will, if approved, make other changes in the tribunal entitlements of transferred prisoners. I have undertaken that further consideration will be given, in the light of views expressed by noble Lords on 19th January, to the tribunal entitlements of patients sent to hospital by order of a court. This reconsideration will extend to patients who have been transferred from prison.

asked Her Majesty's Government:How many prisoners were segregated under Rule 43 for the maintenance of good order and discipline at the end of each month in each of the calendar years from 1964 to 1981 inclusive, and what was the number of prisoners in prison department establishments in England and Wales where segregation under Rule 43 was permitted, at the end of December in each of those years.

So far as the first part of the Question is concerned, it is not possible to supply figures for the period before January 1977 without incurring disproportionate cost. Nor do we have past figures for adult female prisoners segregated under Rule 43 for reasons of good order and discipline. The table below gives the numbers of adult male prisoners who were segregated under Rule 43 for reasons of good order and discipline for the period from January 1977 to October 1981 (the latest date for which figures are available):

	1977	1978	1979	1980	1981
January	119	76	116	109	101
February	131	85	111	104	88
March	68	100	106	103	95
April	72	113	132	101	86
May	66	62	108	104	103
June	84	81	119	111	84
July	73	84	103	104	89
August	67	93	123	154	98
September	119	100	109	159	78
October	67	131	102	161	86
November	101	142	93	122	Not available
December	87	120	100	105	Not available

asked Her Majesty's Government:What was the outcome of the study of the effectiveness of "C" Wing at Parkhurst Prison undertaken by the prison psychological services; what further consideration has been given to the establishment of a second unit in the light of this study, and whether they have any information about the subsequent prison experiences of the inmates who were accommodated in "C" Wing.

Although no formal report was written, the study established the effectiveness of "C" Wing at Parkhurst Prison in containing difficult and disturbed prisoners and suggested that there was sufficient demand for at least one other such unit in the dispersal system. The longer-term effects of "C" Wing on prisoners cannot be separately assessed from the effects of their experience elsewhere in the dispersal system.The possibility of opening another unit is being kept under review, but the practical difficulties make this unlikely in the immediate future.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What research has been commissioned since March 1974 into the phenomenon of prison community life; whether this was carried out by a team of prison psychologists; whether it was arranged by P2 Division; whether it resulted in the emergence of guidelines which will assist staff in identifying likely candidates for Rule 43 and to take preventive action which may enable this final stay to be avoided; and whether they will publish all of this research and any guidelines derived from it.

Segregation, at the prisoner's own request, was made the subject of research, carried out by prison psychologists and organised by P2 Division (as it was then called) in the prison department commencing in March 1974. The results of the research have been made known within the prison service to assist governors to take remedial and preventive action. Certain major findings have already been published, but there is no intention to prepare further material for publication.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

(a) what was the total number of students from Northern Ireland given awards to undertake courses of study in universities in, (i) Great Britain, and (ii) in the Republic of Ireland, in each of the last three academic years; and

(b) what was the total annual public expenditure required to support these students, under the following heads (i) payment of fees, (ii) support grants, and (iii) travel grants.

It is not possible to provide the information in the form requested. However the following awards were made to Northern Ireland students for courses at universities.

	Academic Year
Universities in	1977–78	1978–79	1979–80
(i) Great Britain	2,551	2,550	2,645
(ii) Republic of Ireland	568	635	685

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will bring up to date the parliamentary answer showing NHS in-patients and out-patients and in-patient waiting lists

The figures for 1979 and 1980 for Great Britain are:

Years Ending	In-Patient Discharges and Deaths (thousands)	New Out-Patient (excluding Accident and Emergency cases) (thousands)	New Accident and Emergency Out-Patients (thousands)	No. on In-Patient Waiting List (all specialties) on 31st December (thousands)
31st December, 1979	6,469	9,158	10,679	785
31st December, 1980	6,807	9,437	10,708	745

asked Her Majesty's Government:(i) What is the total aid provided to Bangladesh for the years 1979, 1980 and 1981 and the proposed figure for 1982;(i) whether they will confirm that Bangladesh companies and individuals are allowed to participate in the business life of the United Kingdom subject only to regulations appropriate to the class of business; and(iii) what action they have taken and propose to take following the Bangladesh Government's proposals which discriminate against United Kingdom companies.

Total United Kingdom bilateral aid provided to Bangladesh is as follows:1979 £33.6 million, 1980 £35.0 million and 1981 £28.7 million (estimated). The planning target figure for 1982 has not yet been decided.Bangladesh individuals are entitled to participate fully in the business life of the United Kingdom subject to the normal regulations covering operation of their type of business provided that, if they set up business as a branch of an established overseas parent, they register under the terms of Part 10 of the Companies Act.The new regulations proposed by the Bangladesh Government in connection with indenting businesses apply to all foreign companies. They are not, therefore, discriminatory but one British company is known to be especially adversely affected. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade raised the question with the High Commissioner for Bangladesh at a meeting in London on 29th October last, and representations continue to be made to Bangladesh Ministers by our High Commission in Dacca.

asked her Majesty's Government:What action they have taken in support of Amnesty International's campaign against the disappearance of political prisoners.

We have been giving strong support to the work of the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, which was established as the result of a British initiative. Our representative on the Human Rights Commission, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, is, in his personal capacity, a member of the Group and its current chairman and rapporteur.

asked Her Majesty's Government:When it was decided and announced that the budget for the assisted places scheme should be increased to £4 million (per Lord Elton H.L. Deb. 17th December 1981, col. 343) when Dr. Rhodes Boyson had said on 13th January 1981 (H.C. Deb., col. 1227) that the cash limit would be £3 million; and what were the reasons for the 33⅓ per cent. increase.

The Supply Estimates presented to Parliament on 10th March 1981, and subsequently approved, included £4 million for the assisted places scheme in the financial year 1981–82 at the expected outturn prices. The original £3 million forecast for this period was at 1979 survey prices. The different figures are due entirely to these different price bases.

asked the Leader of the House:What are the criteria by which the relevant Government department decides whether to make copies of a document available in the Printed Paper Office or only to place one copy of the document in the Library.

Copies of all parliamentary papers, which are Command papers, Act papers, papers printed pursuant to an order of either House, Hansards, Bills and amendments whether or not they are printed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, are available in the Printed Paper Office. Copies of non-parliamentary papers relevant to the business of the House are also available in the Printed Paper Office for the personal use of Peers in the discharge of their parliamentary duties, subject to certain financial constraints. Other non-parliamentary papers, to which Members of the House might wish to refer, are made available in the Library.If the noble and learned Lord has a particular paper in mind, I will write to him about the specific circumstances.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

(a) What progress has been made by the Long Ashton Research Station on the willow as a potential source of energy and fuel;

(b) What progress has been made by the Long Ashton Research Station on the willow as a useful habitat for wild life, particularly insects and birds; and

(c)What alternative facilities will be offered to the willow unit at Long Ashton Research Station should the Agricultural Research Council decide to close that section.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the United Kingdom voted on the motion at the United Nations Security Council requiring economic sanctions against Israel arising from the annexation of the Golan Heights; and how each of the other members voted.

The United Kingdom abstained on the United Nations Security Council draft resolution of 20th January which called on member states to consider applying "concrete and effective measures" to Israel.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have contributed to the UNESCO international programme for the development of communications in developing countries and, if not, why not; and whether they will state which other countries have contributed and how much.

Her Majesty's Government supported the establishment of the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC) as a clearing house, to assess communication needs and resources and advise on the ordering of priorities. We regard the IPDC as a positive element for communication development within the already existing channels of multilateral, bilateral, public and private finance, but see no need for any separate fund. Her Majesty's Government have always been ready to consider requests for such assistance from developing countries within existing bilateral programmes and have provided some £30 million for communication projects and trained over 630 personnel during the last three to four years. We do not therefore intend any separate contribution to the IPDC.The Intergovernmental Council of the IPDC ended its second meeting in Mexico on 25th January. The following contributions to the special account were pledged or promised (all figures in US dollars except where stated):

Pledged		Promised
Bangladesh	2,000	Cyprus	2,250
Benin	10,000	India	100,000
Cameroon	11,000	Mexico	500,000
Canada	250,000	Netherlands	500,000
China	100,000	Norway	877,200
Egypt	10,000	San Marino	1,000
Finland	25,000
France	500,000 (French Francs)
Indonesia	100,000
Iraq	100,000
Jamaica	2,000
Tunisia	5,000
USSR	500,000 Roubles
(250,000 in convertible currency)
Venezuela	250,000

Additionally Argentina, Australia, Austria, France, the German Democratic Republic, the Gulf States, the Netherlands the USSR and the United States of America announced their intention of underwriting some projects or providing equipment, expertise or training fellowships.House adjourned at four minutes past seven o'clock.