Sitting of 23 October 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

Preamble
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day

  Betting and Gaming Duties Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—[Mr. Jopling.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. Peter ArcherIt would not be right to permit the Bill or the following five measures to be read a Second time without recognising the massive amount of work that they have entailed for the draftsmen, for the Law Commission and for the Joint Committee on Consolidation. It would be understandable if those three groups were to feel that we bring to nought their labours by refusing to accord them time for debate, that, if we debate their labours, we merely criticise their work, or that we simply ignore them when we allow their work to reach the Floor of the House and finally to come to fruition.

  Having said that, and having expressed the appreciation of the House, I do not propose to take up further time. I am sure that the favour that the three bodies would most desire from me is that I should not impede their progress. I have ventured to give repeated assurances to the Government that the Opposition are anxious to encourage law reform. We shall do nothing that is avoidable to impede it. If I say no more, I hope that the House will understand that that does not signify any disrespect for the work of the Law Commission, the Select Committee and the draftsmen. Indeed, it is the wish of the Opposition to expedite it. In any event, the House may take heart from the reflection that unless anything unexpected transpires what I have said on this Bill is intended to be applicable to the following five measures, and I do not propose to repeat it.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling): I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for his remarks. We are all extremely grateful for the work of the Law Commission, which comes to the House on frequent occasions. I hope that the House will be able to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  Committee upon Monday next.

  Acquisition of Land [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  Committee upon Monday next.

  Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Bill [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  New Towns Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Mr. Jopling.]
  9.42 am
  Mr. Christopher Murphy (Welwyn and Hatfield)I add my support to this consolidation Bill, as a Member of Parliament having the honour to represent two new towns—Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield. I believe that this New Towns Bill will prove helpful.
  A large number of measures relating to new towns have been enacted between 1959 and 1980. Consolidating such a plethora of legislation is a highly desirable development. All the legislative provisions relating to the Commission for the New Towns and the New Town Development Corporation will now be consolidated into one Act, which will be advantageous to the Government in fulfilling their intention to sell their assets and abolish those bodies.
  I therefore welcome the Bill, which will be of assistance to all those involved with new towns. I urge the Government to make use of this measure in speedily achieving their objectives.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  Committee upon Monday next.

  New Towns Bill [Lords]

    TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
    Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported without amendment.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    BROADCASTING BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
    Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported without amendment.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed without amendment.

    Information Technology
    9.43 am
    The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Wakeham)I beg to move,
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9361/80, covering proposals for a Community Strategy on Information Technology, particularly in the fields of microelectronics and telecommunications, and of the supplementary memorandum dated 7th May 1981.
    I suppose that all good things come to an end, even for the House of Commons. Two and a half years of enforced silence have come to an end. Therefore, I have great pleasure, and I welcome the opportunity to do so, in asking the House to take note of European Community document No. 9361/80 on the subject of the information technology industry and the European Community.
    That document covers the Commission's report on a wide range of action which in its view is needed to implement a European Community strategy on information technology. It touches specifically on proposals for support for the Community's microelectronics industry and for harmonisation and creation of a Community-wide market in telecommunications.
    The initiative for an EEC information technology policy was first set out in Commissioner Davignon's paper, approved by the Dublin summit in November 1979, entitled "European Society faced with the challenge of new information technologies—a response"
    Viscount Davignon argued for and outlined a Community strategy aimed at securing a one-third share of a world market in 1990, estimated at $1,300 billion—a share which the Community was not seen as attaining through the pursuit of purely national policies. Those are the guts of the EEC proposal. In the first document, document 9361/80, the Commission sets out projects on information, education and training to which it is giving priority. We fully endorse the Commission's approach in this document and will actively pursue its practical implementation.
    The Government have of course recognised the importance of the rapidly growing information technology industry. This is true in the contexts of both the United Kingdom and Europe. In the United Kingdom the Government have taken initiatives to stimulate and develop the information technology industry. We have put on the statute book the British Telecommunications Act, which will enable a substantial liberalisation of the telecommunications monopoly and so have a determining influence on the provision of the modern telecommunications that are so important to the application of information technology.
    About £80 million of direct support has been earmarked over the next four years to help industrial research, development and manufacture of new products and processes in the IT field. This is in addition to the £110 million provided for the microprocessor applications project and the microelectronic industrial support programme.
    The Government have stated that, whenever it is appropriate, they will also use the power of purchasing by both Government and public bodies to foster indigenous technology such as Viewdata and Prestel and to help pull through innovative products.
    The year 1982 has been designated Information Technology Year, which will entail a major IT awareness

    517
    campaign, involving exhibitions—including a travelling exhibition of new office technology—seminars and special events, and which will be supported by appropriate studies, trials, demonstration projects and supporting literature. The highlight of the campaign will be a major conference on IT in December 1982.
    In education, my Department has the "Micros in Schools" scheme, which aims to put a microcomputer into every secondary school, including special schools, by the end of 1982. The scheme is being implemented in parallel with the Department of Education's microelectronics in education programme, and it is hoped that it will be extended in due course to primary schools.
    Mr. Torn EllisDoes the Department intend to extend the list of companies recommended to supply computers to schools? I have a company in my constituency that manufactures the machinery, but it, among others, is not on the list and so is at a considerable disadvantage.
    Mr. WakehamI shall consider the point. There is a restricted list, but I do not believe that the Government intend to stick to it for ever and a day. These matters are reviewed from time to time.
    Another important initiative the Department of Industry is involved in is the joint venture with the Manpower Services Commission to set up information technology centers in towns and cities based on the successful Nottingdale scheme in West London. The response to this initiative has been very encouraging. Initially, about 20 centers are due to be set up within the next few months, and we shall be announcing the locations within the next few weeks.
    The centers will offer training in technological skills to young unemployed people, and will also have the remit to develop and produce marketable products with a view to floating off small business enterprises. An example is Digitalent, which makes data loggers. This is a commercial operation, based on the Nottingdale center, which will be contributing 40 per cent. of its profits to the center. This is used to sustain another small business making aids for the disabled.
    In the European context, the Government welcome the Davignon initiative because of the importance of IT and because we consider this to be an area where action at the Community level could be beneficial. We endorse the recent House of Lords Select Committee assessment that the Commission may not have the resources to implement all of the plan. We have, therefore, urged the Commission to press ahead with practical proposals where results are likely to be achieved quickly. We must accept that in many areas, unless funds are allocated to the Commission's plans, these will be limited in effectiveness.
    Ideally, the Commission's recognition of the importance of IT should be reflected in the resources allocated to the initiative. Nevertheless it is unlikely that large scale funds will be available in the short term; the Commission will therefore have to concentrate on areas that do not involve substantial funding and on working through existing organisations for example, competition rules and standards.
    In the areas where the Commission has produced proposals, the Government have taken a positive attitude. We believe that microelectronics is a vital technology and one where European co-operation could be fruitful. The
    518
    proposals are in the document COM(80)421. In particular, the multi-company—the multinational approach proposed—could not be set up by any national Government acting alone. Although the proposed finance is relatively modest—52 million units of account or £8.5 million—and is unlikely to have a massive impact, nevertheless it is a useful first step and will be encouraging a form of industrial activity that has never before been undertaken in Europe on a significant scale.
    The Government believe that, within our overall policy of restraint of public expenditure and the United Kingdom contribution to the Community budget, the expenditure should be given priority in budget discussions and, subject to small drafting points, fully support the regulation. We have tried hard to obtain agreement among member States in Council discussions, but there are still outstanding difficulties. We shall continue to emphasise that it is now time for the talking to stop and for action to start. We hope that we shall reach agreement before the end of the year.
    To summarise, it is unrealistic to believe at present that it is practical for Europe to be entirely self-sufficient in strategic technologies. Nevertheless, it is a valid objective and the microelectronics regulation is a useful step towards that objective.
    On the telecommunications recommendations the Government intend to continue to endorse the principles of the Commission's proposals. The recommendations are in document COM(80)422. We should like to see the recommendations strengthened and have had some doubts about the practicability of some aspects. Nevertheless, the recommendations would be an important contribution in Europe to the Government's efforts to secure assurances on reciprocal market access following United Kingdom liberalisation. Substantial progress is being made during the present United Kingdom Presidency. Our aim in negotiation is to reach a practical way forward which can be got under way quickly.
    In conjunction with these recommendations, the Government are taking an initiative with British Telecom and United Kingdom suppliers to overcome some of the practical problems currently obstructing genuine European cross-border trade in telecommunications equipment. For example, it is currently extremely difficult for manufacturers in one member State to design equipment for the network of another member State. We are, therefore, encouraging British Telecom and British suppliers jointly to seek European-wide discussions—for example in the European Conference of Post and Telecommunications Administrations and, where appropriate, under Community auspices, to resolve some of the underlying technical and practical problems.
    9.59 am
    Mr. John GarrettWe welcome the end of the silence which the Minister has had to maintain for the past two and a half years. We hope that this does not mean an end to his affability.
    The documents before us are a useful, though to our minds largely irelevant, initiative in a crucial area of microtechnology. Microtechnology lies at the heart of the new industrial revolution. One of the problems for the Government is that it is more than a new industry. It is a new architecture for all industries. The development of information sciences has an all-pervasive effect throughout manufacturing and service industries and, indeed, government itself.

    519
    The document "First Proposals for Community Actions in the Field of Microelectronics" points out that today's pocket calculator consists of a single chip embodying a power comparable to that of the first computer and that tomorrow's submicron technology will offer up to 1 million bits of information on a single chip and will embody the equivalent of today's large computer or a large telephone exchange. The document points out that the integrated circuit has spread horizontally to an ever-widening range of markets and vertically to take over a great deal of design and production activity of former systems.
    This scale of change and development clearly poses significant problems for Britain and for other European countries. They are problems not only of technical and industrial development—how to obtain and hold a place in the production and use of new systems and devices and to hold a leading place in research and development—but also the social effects, such as the effect on employment, training, education and everyday life.
    The documents propose the basis of what one might call a tentative strategy for technical industrial development and specific programmes of research and development for a few key production processes. In that respect, they are welcome. But they say little that is specific about the social efects and how the EEC proposes to prepare for them. To that extent, the documents are an inadequate response. We need to be able to anticipate the coming revolution in employment, both in quantity and in type. I fear that very little is being done in Europe or by the British Government in that respect. Faced with this challenge, the EEC's response is to spend less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. of its agriculture budget in the area of microtechnology.
    It is clear that Europe lags two to four years behind the United States and Japan in the development and application of microtechnology. The Community depends on imports for 65 per cent. or more of its integrated circuits. Europe's world market share of the production of these devices is less than 10 per cent. and in many ways it may be too late for us to get into that field. European computer companies have only 16 per cent. of the world market, and European peripheral producers have less than 20 per cent. of the world market.
    Japan and the United States have systematic State-supported programmes, funded on a scale which EEC countries collectively and individually have not yet begun to match. The Japanese plan for the information society was begun in 1967 with 400 million units of account spent on computers and 200 mua on integrated circuits. American funding to Federal programmes alone runs to even greater orders of magnitude. Europe has been unable to match the continental scale of the American market or the single-minded planning and Government action of the Japanese.
    Yet Europe provides 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. of the world market for telecommunications equipment, data processing systems and integrated circuits—a home market base in aggregate which could be sufficient to promote manufacturing development on a continental scale and therefore a substantially increased world presence in this sphere.
    One problem which the proposals seek to redress is to find a way of mobilising the European industry on a
    520
    continental scale by harmonising standards, specifications and practices. A key proposal in this regard is to establish a more open Community market in several key areas of equipment and software and to increase intra-EEC co-operation.
    There is clearly much to be said for this general approach, whether Britain remains a member of the EEC or not. A market for standard equipment and software could promote continental scale markets and manufacturing, so long as all discriminatory practices are ended by mutual agreement.
    The first requirement is closer co-operation between the manufacturing nations in Europe—a difficult objective in itself, given differing national policies, for example, in respect of multinationals, particularly American companies. It seems doubtful to me whether the French, for example, would be willing to subsume their national interest and their clear national strategy to a wider EEC programme.
    Secondly, the specific spending initiative proposed by the EEC on research and development on microelectronic components is on far too small a scale to have any impact on the lead enjoyed by Japan and the United States. The proposed funding of some 50 mua over four years is less than half the annual spend by the United Kingdom alone, and that itself is derisory.
    Thirdly, the risk is that the proposed spending by the EEC will undermine existing sectoral schemes in the United Kingdom at present. The Government will be tempted—we have seen them do this before—to save public expenditure by using EEC funds for purposes to which they were already committed and which are already depleted of funds. Will the Minister give an undertaking that EEC funds will not be used in substitution for programmes already decided upon by his Department?
    The specific EEC proposal is for funding up to 50 per cent. of the cost of five high priority research and development programmes—four on the manufacturing and testing of microelectronic components and one on computer-aided design.
    The first question is, therefore, as to what extent EEC priorities are our priorities. Do the Government see direct optical stepping, electron beam direct writing, plasma etching and testing as high priorities for microelectronic component manufacture in this country? The electronic components EDC did not seem to think so, but pointed to other weaknesses in the components sphere in Britain, such as the lack of optical lithographic equipment and single crystal silicon in bulk. Taking what the EEC regards as important, therefore, there is no indication that our electronic components EDC thinks the same way.
    The fifth area—computer-aided design—is clearly as important to us as it is to our competitors, but is there a common approach to this? Are our priorities in developing computer-aided design the same as those of the EEC? The report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Community in May this year dealing with this subject criticised the Commission's proposal as focusing too narrowly on administration and overlooking the large field of application in the manufacturing and process industries. It may be that we should put more effort into computer-aided manufacture rather than attempting to compete with the Japanese and the American on some of these components.

    521
    If these areas of research and development are appropriate to our needs, how do the Government propose to proceed? Do we have manufacturers or research institutions capable of this work or already doing it? Or do we have to construct or encourage the formation of bodies which can undertake it?
    The Commission was concerned about this funding going to non-European multinational companies. The United Kingdom encourages the activities of multinationals here. Our partners in Europe have a far more suspicious attitude. Is there any way in which European-funded research in Britain can be prevented from still further strengthening American efforts in this sector? Will the funds be restricted to British companies and, if so, how? How can we stop the diffusion of technology promoted by the EEC finding its way into American companies?
    In evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, information technology division, said:
    "the United Kingdom certainly does not share the Commission's apparent obsession with the problems caused by the multi-nationals, and specifically by the United States multi-national corporations."
    On this issue, the EEC may well be right and the Department of Industry wrong. American multi-nationals set up here not to further British interests but to further American interests and to take advantage of our reputation and our skills in scientific and technical research, which they then deploy worldwide in pursuit of American interests.
    In the course of the Committee hearings in the other place, it was pointed out that the giant IBM, which carries out extensive research and development here, contributed only £8 million to our balance of payments, whereas one of our bigger software houses contributed no less than £4 million on a turnover, as Lord Kearton pointed out, which was peanuts compared with that of IBM.
    The report of the electronic components sector working party last December pointed out some of the disadvantages of inward investment by multinationals. The job creation potential is often low. It could threaten existing companies and could cause a contraction in the United Kingdom output of United Kingdom producers if, for example, foreign component manufacturers diversified into equipment making.
    The documents raise a wider question. Do we have a policy and programme in Britain which would enable us to move in concert with EEC initiatives? Is there a Government strategy for microelectronics? We know of individual ad hoc programmes, which were invented by the Labour Government—MISP and MAP, for example—but do we know where we are going in the long term in this sector? The under-secretary in charge of information technology in the Department of Industry said that his division was a focal point for the development of a "coherent national programme" and that it would be too much to call it a strategy. Later he referred to the way in which these things are done in France and said:
    "The French are doing it initially as their own tight national effort, fully integrated within France, fully working on French national interests. They operate from a position of strength because they know what they want to do and where they want to go. Therefore, they drive very tight and effective bargains, particularly through the Community".
    What an indictment of the British ability to serve our own national interests and drive tight bargains through the
    522
    Community. Is this proposal another example of a tight and effective bargain driven through the Community by the French? Are its priorities French priorities and not ours? I should have thought that that was very likely.
    Compared with the French, we in Britain simply produce ad hoc expedients in response to problems as they arise. The motive force for technical development in these fields in France is public investment at 10 times our level. In West Germany, the State spends £240 million a year on assistance to its computer and microelectronics industries. A paper by the electronics EDC earlier this year showed that not only did France, Germany, Japan and the United States of America spend a greater proportion of their gross national product on the electronics industry but that their spending had a greater sensitivity to industrial needs, and showed greater selectivity and higher levels of coordination. In other words, it was under better Government direction. Those Governments knew what they were doing. They had long-term national objectives in this field. We do not have them.
    Our electronics strategy is subservient to the crude dictates on monetarism, so that ICL was flogged off to the private sector and then had to be rescued with State funds. British Telecommunications' investment programme, because of the way we keep out our national accounts, is limited by the restriction on public sector borrowing, nothing whatever to do with national needs. It is simply a means of meeting a particular construct applied to our national accounting system. There could hardly be an economic strategy more inimical to systematic planning of high technology developments.
    The Labour Government's microelectronic industrial support programme had its budget cut from £70 million to £55 million in pursuit of the reduction in public expenditure at a time when the seed capital of State assistance was most needed.
    A survey for the Department of Industry last year showed that half of the British companies do not appreciate the importance of microelectronics and are not doing anything to adopt the new technology. The Minister might care to tell the House what is the present take-up rate on the microelectronics applications project, and what has become of the proposal to aim it at specific user industries. Will it be extended?
    One feature of the microelectronics industry that is apparent—unusually for a modern industry—is that small firms, producing or adapting hardware and software, can get into it. In Norwich, the city council recently had a competition that offered premises to new businesses. Several of the contestants were in the field of microcomputers and equipment and software. The limitation on their growth was not commercially viable ideas—there were plenty of those—but the cost of capital. The raising of interest rates has done more to hold back new firms in microtechnology than any other Government policy. Schemes of assistance are of no great value when a new business faces interest rates at their present level. Investment by user industries is held back by the high interest rates which, as we all know, are an integral feature of monetarism. All innovation is stifled by a Government who promote recession to control inflation.
    The absence of a long-term strategy and the use of short-term monetarist economics means that there is very little prospect of our being able to capitalise on the skills that we have to secure a place in microtechnology. We risk

    523
    becoming an offshore island of American technology, with our manufacturers being forced to rely on foreign suppliers.
    With regard to the telecommunications proposals in the third part of the EEC document, the Commission points out that telecommunications authorities in Europe purchase equipment to a value of 4,500 mua annually, with a growth rate of 5 or 6 per cent. a year, and that this market is now showing explosive growth with the convergence on telecommunications of word processing, new forms of data transmission, and telematic terminals. None of this equipment is compatible across Europe, so that once again we do not have a continental scale in manufacturing, whereas the Americans can operate on that scale.
    The new technology offers a unique opportunity for harmonisation in an area where the Japanese and the Americans do not yet have a stranglehold. The EEC wants to establish a Community-wide market. The first stage in this effort is to open up a general market for equipment.
    It is not unlikely that the United Kingdom will develop a much more open approach to liberalisation than other member countries. The tendency in other countries may well be to insist on a variety of technical barriers so that we open up our market to them while they are not so liberal towards us.
    Mr. John GoldingMy hon. Friend says that it may happen. Is he aware that it has already happened? The proposals in the Commission's report are far less generous, in terms of opening up, than those of British Telecommunications.
    Mr. GarrettYes, I was aware of that and was just about to come to it. My point is that with a free market Government such as we have at the moment, the whole attitude here is one of laissez-faire, as compared with Western Europe, and in a mass of areas public purchasing is much more likely to be opened up here than in the EEC.
    The telecommunications supply industry in Britain is not persuaded of the wisdom of the proposal to open up 10 per cent. of procurement by 1986, and clearly doubts whether it can take advantage of liberalisation on this scale and at this speed. The gains from such an arrangement if it took place too quickly, could go to Japanese and American companies, perhaps assembling their equipment in EEC member countries.
    At present, as my hon. Friend has said, the British Government are opening up markets for terminal apparatus to a far wider extent than is proposed by the European Commission, and that leaves us with no bargaining power. Continental suppliers will be presented with a market in the United Kingdom for types of terminal equipment which have already been liberalised in the United Kingdom but not in the rest of the EEC. United Kingdom suppliers will be able to attack a much more limited area of liberalised purchasing in the EEC.
    If our partners would go for liberalised purchasing on the scale proposed in Britain, British suppliers would then have the same markets as are to be opened up in Britain by the recent Government legislation here. But, of course they will not; they are not that silly. So we have already placed ourselves at a considerable disadvantage.
    British Telecommunications has sunk millions of pounds and years of effort into system X and various forms
    524
    of digital transmission and would hardly want to open up areas such as these for liberalisation. National purchasing of British equipment is required so that we can proceed with the modernisation of the network. We cannot stand this level of liberalisation until we are sufficiently strong in the new technologies. The timetable for 10 per cent. cross-frontier trading is too ambitious and not in our national interest.
    None of these proposals is of any great value to us in the absence of a national strategy for microtechnology and telematics. The policy of monetarism, plus a suicidal drive to cut public expenditure in areas crucial to national technological development, plus ad hoc responses to isolated developments, is just the formula that we need to make sure that we fail to take advantage of our opportunities and our skills. That is the way in which things are developing at the moment with the Government's refusal to set long-term objectives, supported by public expenditure, for the development of microtechnology and telecommunications.
    10.18 am
    Mr. John GoldingI should like to speak from two points of view. The first is as a constituency Member representing workers at Marconi and ICL. The second is as the sponsored Member and Assistant Secretary of the Post Office Engineering Union.
    I was very disappointed this week to be told by the Minister for Industry and Information Technology that no commitment can be given to my constituency that it is to have an information technology center. That is regrettable, first because of the rapid increase in unemployment in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Our unemployment rate has trebled since the general election of May 1979. There is also a considerable problem of youth unemployment, which did not previously exist in my constituency. There is a potential for young people and others to be employed in factories producing information technology equipment—if they have the skills and if there is sufficient investment. However, I regret that it looks as though Newcastle-under-Lyme will not benefit from the MSC programme.
    Over the last few months I have looked with horror at the position within ICL. I approached these documents against the background of the redundancies that have occurred and recurred in ICL in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies. Given the growth in world trade and demand for information technology, the run down of employment and a dispersal of skill from ICL is totally unacceptable.
    One of the things that struck me most when I was at the Department of Employment was that we lost so much of our skill to service occupations, not because of pay, but because craftsmen and technicians in our manufacturing industry decided that greater security could be obtained in those services. People tended to leave manufacturing industry when others were being made redundant. I regret that that will also happen in the computer industry. Greater support should be given to ICL at this time.
    From the briefing notes that I received from ICL over the last week—other hon. Members will have received them—I noted that ICL is purchasing chips from Japan. Joint ventures with Japan are not my idea of the best means of developing our microelectronic industry.
    The EEC report is important and significant because its starting point, with which I agree, is that there is a need

    525
    to develop microtechnology and telecommunications systems. I do not think that any Labour Member would argue against the need for that. It is a prerequisite for our industrial development in the 1980s and beyond, and it is essential, if we are to survive as an industrial nation, that we keep abreast of information technology and ensure that it is applied here. That will require a massive extension and modernisation of telecommunications.
    It is important not only to apply technology but to develop and manufacture it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) pointed out, not only Britain but Europe as a whole has been left behind by the Americans and Japanese. That is a sad reflection on European private enterprise. Europe produces $825 million worth of integrated circuits and uses $4,030 million worth. There is such a large gap between its consumption and its production. The United States and Japan produce much more than they use. Those countries have not developed solely as a result of private enterprise, although firms there have contributed more to their development than have some British and European companies to our development.
    United States defence expenditure has made a significant contribution to the United States industry, and the Japanese Government have made a massive financial contribution that has enabled their industry to leapfrog the Americans in some cases. There is a great need for public funds and for European companies to get together to develop the microelectronic industry in Europe.
    I was disappointed with the original proposal that the funding should come from national Governments, and I congratulate those who have persuaded the Community to set aside that condition. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South that it is shameful that so little of the Community budget is spent on the development of modern industrial technology compared with the amount spent on the agriculture policy. I am not certain how useful these proposals will be, and I hope that the Minister will reassure me. I agree with my hon. Friend that the amount that the Commission has in mind is inadequate, but that is not my only concern.
    The Select Committee on the European Communities in the other place produced an enlightening report—the 27th report on new information technologies. The Committee examined the requirement that companies involved with the manufacture of infrastructure should persuade two or three users—component manufacturers—to collaborate in technological developments. Given that, and the Commission's agreement, the project would then be given 50 per cent. support from Community funds. I may be wrong, but I assume that that is still the condition for the allocation of funds. If so, I share the Committee's views that it
    "felt some doubt whether the structure of manufacturing industry in Europe would make it easy to establish many projects of this kind."
    Do the Government agree with the conditions laid down? That there should be three users comes to mind. Does that condition reduce the importance of the recommendation? Does the Minister share the doubts of the Select Committee on this point?
    The initiative is, however, to be welcomed. The attention of Governments will be focused on the need to do more in this area. However, I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South in one respect. It is important that we increase our development
    526
    of microtechnology. Without that we shall decline even further as an industrial nation, we shall not have the wealth that we need to make it possible for our people to have decent incomes, and we shall not be able to afford all the services that my hon. Friends and I believe that it is important to provide in education, health, local government and so on.
    The new technology can both create and destroy jobs and I fear that more attention is being paid to the development of the technology than to solving many of the problems that it will bring with it. I hope that when proposals are made to increase the penetration of microtechnology the Government and the Commission will also make proposals to deal with the problems that will arise.
    I welcome the work that has been done to try to ensure an integrated telecommunications system in Europe. Indeed, I should like to see an international integrated system. It does not make sense that it has been impossible to connect equipment from one country to that in another and it makes no sense for the future for us not to have integrated systems.
    However, I fiercely challenge two of the proposals. The first is the intention to open up 10 per cent. of the domestic market to tendering. I do not believe that the British telecommunications manufacturing industry is ready to face such competition. At present, BTel purchases about 99 per cent. of its equipment on the British market and the proposal could be detrimental to our telecommuncations manufacturing industry.
    The Government may argue that in the long run such a move would be beneficial to our industry, but people are not unemployed in the long run; they are unemployed in the short run. In the past 20 years there has been a tremendous rundown of jobs in the British telecommunications manufacturing industry. Plants on Merseyside and in the North-East could be threatened by the EEC proposals and it would be tragic if jobs were lost there.
    The Government must face up to the problem. It was harmful to ICL to lose its preferential public purchasing and it could be harmful to the British telecommunications industry to face competition through tenders.
    There will be occasions when BTel has to go abroad for its equipment. The British manufacturing industry has failed to develop as rapidly as it should over the years and BTel may have to buy equipment from Sweden or elsewhere, but I do not believe that it is desirable to open up our market on the proposed 10 per cent. basis.
    I also fiercely challenge the report's proposal that the market should be opened up through liberalisation. That section of the report jarred after I had read the argument that public support was needed to develop the microelectronics industry.
    Much public money has gone into the development of telecommunications. The report suggests that there should be public support for the development of microelectronics. It accepts that investment will come from public funds and the taxpayers' pocket, without any suggestion of an immediate or anything but an indirect long-term return. The principle is that State funds should be used to develop systems in the interests of the Community.
    Much more needs to be invested in telecommunications, but when we reach that part of the report the arguments change and suggest that private firms should be allowed to take services away from the State monopoly. That would allow private enterprise to come into an area

    527
    where State money has been used to build up services and facilities and cream off the most profitable parts of the business—not the network, but the peripheral terminal equipment.
    The report proposes that where private enterprise has not the wit or the funds to invest in microelectronics the State should assist them. Where, however, that has already happened—and the State has built up telecommunications in one country after another—the Community suggests not that the systems should be built up further, using funds generated by public investment, but that private investors should be allowed to cream off the profits. I find that repulsive. The report is also deficient when it deals with the privatisation principle, including the maintenance of equipment.
    I do not think that this report has faced up to the problems and difficulties of the maintenance of equipment that has been supplied by private companies, both indigenous and foreign. The report deals only with foreign companies. I think that the Commission will find very many more difficulties over maintenance than it has envisaged.
    The Minister will know that it is because of the problems of maintenance, and the abhorrence of creaming off, the realisation that a great deal of money is needed to develop the basic telecommunications system that will not be there if the most profitable services are hived off to private enterprise, that I, on behalf of the Post Office Engineering Union, opposed strongly the British Telecommunications Act. The proposals in the report relating to much of the peripheral equipment have all the defects of that Act. I welcome the general spirit of the report.
    In terms of microelectronics, however, I wonder whether the financial support is big enough. Are the physical arrangements for giving that support correct? In relation to British Telecommunications, I welcome the harmonisation that could take place as a result of the report, but I oppose the opening up of British Telecommunications purchases to foreign companies, and I oppose strongly, the privatisation proposals included in the report.
    10.41 am
    Mr. WakehamBoth the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) have said that they welcome the report which is before the House today. I am probably not alone in thinking that during their very interesting remarks they could have fooled me on that once or twice. Nevertheless, the burden of many of their complaints was that the report and the proposals did not go far enough.
    Both hon. Gentlemen made important and interesting speeches and raised matters that went rather wider than the particular matters before the house. I make no complaint about that. However, if I do not give them an adequate reply to all the points that they have raised—both of them have had longer experience of dealing with these matters than I have—I shall read their speeches very carefully and cover later any points I have missed.
    I am glad both hon. Gentlemen welcome the report. Both spoke of inadequate funding. The amount proposed is 52 million European units of account, which is £8·5 million per annum, rather than a total of £8·5 million; so
    528
    it is £32 million over four years. No doubt the burden of the hon. Gentlemen's remarks would be the same whether it was one or the other, but it is rather more, and it may have been my fault in misleading them, in which case I apologise.
    The hon. Member for Norwich, South spoke of the massive problem of dealing with comparative rates of investment and research, as compared with those of the United States and Japan. British and European industries are presented with massive problems in this respect but I deny that we have no policy at all on this matter. The Government have taken initiatives in MAP and MISP to try to deal with these problems in the light of both the need and the conflicting claims on our resources.
    The important point to make in that connection is that in the United States and Japan it is private enterprise and private investment that are involved whose expenditure is many times greater than Government support. The British Government are trying to act as a catalyst in many areas, but in the end we take the view that it is mainly the companies that will have to take the decisive initiatives.
    I was asked whether the funding under the EEC proposal would be a substitute for the present United Kingdom funding. The answer to that is "No." This will be additional funding and will not normally be available for the same projects as the United Kingdom funding. It is possible that European funding and United Kingdom funding may be available for different parts of an overall project, but the intention is that this should be additional funding rather than a substitution.
    We believe that this regulation would not particularly benefit French industry. We think that it is more likely to benefit ours. It has been agreed that all member States regard multinational companies operating in Europe and doing research and development as doing important things for British industry, and they are making in many areas a valuable contribution to employment and the research expertise available in Britain.
    We agree with the priorities in the report, although it does not cover everything. In our judgment, it is not inconsistent with the Electronics Economic Development Council's recent report.
    The United Kingdom telecommunications liberalisation is a much more gradual process than either hon. Gentleman has made out. We are fully conscious of the need to allow industry to adjust, and we have allowed a three-year programme for liberalisation.
    The scope of the recommendations will be narrow in the short term, but in the long term the recommendations will cover a wider range of equipment and all new equipment called "telematic" in the recommendations.
    Matters connected with ICL were raised. Understandably, they are very important. Having given ICL substantial support in terms of guarantees, the Government take a very encouraged view of the way in which the new management has set about dealing with the problems. We welcome the arrangements and agreements which seem to be emerging, particularly in the use of Japanese technology, which will enable ICL to develop a wider range of products. However, we consider that most of the questions concerning the company in this area are primarily for the management.
    A point was raised about the House of Lords Select Committee. We support Community action where we consider that joint participation is appropriate. We have our national programme, but there are areas where we

    529
    believe that the Community can bring together industry and potential consumers across the member States within the Community. This, we think, will add to the opportunities for our telecommunications industry and our information technology.
    Mr. GoldingWhy should it be a condition? I understand why we should wish to encourage co-operation. Why should it be a condition of getting funds that this should be across borders? It does not apply to farmers, does it?
    Mr. WakehamIt certainly does not apply to farmers. It is clearly unlikely that a scheme could be devised applying to farmers across borders in the same way.
    The point I see in this proposal is that the EEC recognises that if we are to be able to compete successfully with Japan and with the United States, it is necessary for those involved in information technology industries to look at a European market in order to develop across Europe and to be successful in that area. We believe this gives us a better opportunity of getting a major share of this massive world market.
    The EEC proposal is aimed at encouraging that development by cross-border support. The EEC recognises that this is an area where, with limited funding, it can make a contribution. This does not mean that there are not other areas that do not involve cross-border activity which are not extremely important. I think, however, that with a limited fund the EEC would be right to concentrate on particular areas where it identifies particular problems.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9361/80, covering proposals for a Community Strategy on Information Technology, particularly in the fields of microelectronics and telecommunications, and of the supplementary memorandum dated 7th May 1981.

  Royal Northern Hospital
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gummer.]
  10.53 am
  Mr. Michael O'HalloranI should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) on his new appointment. I am glad to have the opportunity to debate the proposal to close the accident and emergency department of the Royal Northern hospital, Islington, and to transfer its facilities to the Whittington hospital. Over 10 years ago, I had a similar Adjournment debate concerning the future of the whole Royal Northern hospital. The then Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the right hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), stated in his reply:
  "The Royal Northern hospital has a promising future".—[Official Report, 23 February 1971; Vol. 812, c. 538.]
  That was 10 years ago.
  But times have changed. There are proposals once again concerning the hospital but this time the proposals are to close the accident and emergency department—a step that would, if it took place, lead to the eventual closure of the Royal Northern hospital as a general hospital.
  I must mention briefly that the Royal Northern hospital celebrates its 125th birthday this year. It was founded in 1856 and dealt with 11,718 patients in the first six months. By 1900, it had been extended to such an extent that it was granted a charter of incorporation by the Queen in Council, and the development of the Royal Northern group of hospitals started. This led to the incorporation of the Royal chest hospital in City Road, the Reckitt convalescent home in Clacton, the home of recovery in Earlsmead, Liverpool Road hospital in Islington, now closed, and Hanley Road hospital. In fact, this Royal Northern group formed the basis for the later north-west metropolitan region and pioneered work on self-contained associations, grouping hospitals long before the idea emanated from the Ministry of Health.
  In its first report the north-west metropolitan region health board stated:
  "The committee of management of the Royal Northern hospitals must be congratulated for their wisdom and foresight in anticipating the organisation of the present hospital by many years."
  In the 125 years of its existence, the Royal Northern hospital has served the people of Islington proudly and indeed still does so today. No words of mine can adequately express how indebted we all are to the medical staff, to the nurses and to the ancillary staff for their tremendous work. Islington is particularly proud of its casualty unit. Its war memorial to the dead of both world wars was erected there to mark the special role that the hospital played at that time.
  When plans for the closure of the accident and emergency department were first put forward, there was outrage among the people of Islington. A petition signed by over 60,000 people was collected within a few weeks and was presented to the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), when he visited the hospital in 1980. There have been numerous meetings since that time but, with the area health authority and the regional health authority both in agreement regarding the closure, I believe that they, in their wisdom, have not considered the full facts.

  531
  The Minister stated in May 1980 that only some new factors would persuade him to veto the closure. There are new facts that I wish him to consider. With hindsight, it might be regarded as regrettable that the Department of Health and Social Security authorised and funded the building of four new accident and emergency departments in the Camden and Islington area—the Royal Northern, University College, the Royal Free and the Whittington hospitals.
  It might also be regarded as regrettable that the Department had a change of heart regarding the overall development of the Royal Northern hospital site. This ideal site of some eight acres was originally planned to have a 650-bed general hospital including an obstetric unit. Site clearance was undertaken with the compulsory purchase and demolition of many dwellings.
  The loss of the accident emergency department, the casualty department, signals a fundamental change in the nature of a hospital. The Royal Northern medical staff have been very much opposed to the closure of the casualty department. They have been convinced that the best interests of the patients would be served by maintaining the full range of emergency and other services on the Royal Northern hospital's site. Nevertheless, with reluctance and against their deepest feelings they have agreed that the Whittington and Royal Northern hospitals should form a single district general hospital and that the casualty department of the Royal Northern hospital will eventually close.
  Timing is all-important. The Whittington hospital is on three separate sites, the largest being the central site, the St. Mary's wing. The three sites are separated by main roads; and patient communication between them is by ambulance only with all the potential for delays and complexities that this may entail. Within the next year, the 100-bed City of London maternity hospital about half a mile away will be closed and its work transferred to the St. Mary's wing site. In addition, preparations will be put in hand for closing and demolishing a small number of wards in St. Mary's wing in preparation for the building of a 250-bed new surgical ward block.
  It cannot, therefore, be the right time for the casualty department of the Royal Northern hospital to be closed, thus throwing on to St. Mary's wing in this critical year an additional 34,000 casualty attendances—figures for the casualty department attendances, which have varied little during the past five years, show that in 1980 there were 33,875, of which 21,368 were new cases—and requiring a major reorganisation of all the junior medical staff appointments in both hospitals. It would also prejudice the continued viability of the Royal Northern hospital as a coherent and highly efficient unit that has many of the advantages and very few of the disadvantages of the small acute general hospital.
  In the spring of 1982, a new district health authority will be given the task of managing all the complex problems of Islington's health services. Many of those who have advised me are convinced that the closure of the Royal Northern hospital casualty department at this time will result in a clinical load on St. Mary's wing of the Whittington hospital that will be more than it can bear. It might be regarded as unfair to burden the new district health authority with a decision that is likely to result in a complex and potentially dangerous situation.
  532
  The medical staff of the two hospitals laid down a number of requirements before they would agree to a decision to close the Royal Northern hospital casualty department. Those requirements were that they should be able to examine all the proposals made by the district management team for the reception of the increased casualty load in St. Mary's wing of the Whittington hospital, for the redistribution of emergency admissions to the two hospitals, for the training of junior staff, for the adequate and safe levels of medical and nursing staffing in the reorganised facilities, and for the ability of the ambulance services and other lines of communication to cope with the altered situation.
  Those proposals have not yet been put to the medical staff, so that most important element in the decision-making process has not been completed. The closure of the Royal Northern hospital casualty department will increase the total number of attendances at the Whittington casualty department by approximately 34,000. That will bring the total number of attendances there up to more than 86,000 a year and will, I think, make Whittington attendances the largest in the London area. When it is realised that the flexibility of the site depends on ambulance transport across two main roads and that it is already under pressure from the existing casualty load, it will, I hope, be appreciated that the decision to close the casualty department at the Royal Northern hospital is premature.
  The Islington community health council has uncovered new factors, which have been submitted to the Minister as counter-proposals to the plans approved by the area health authority and the regional health authority. Extensive research was carried out, including the interviewing of patients for seven 24-hour days at each of the hospital's casualty departments—a total of 825 patients. Admissions over a month were analysed and investigations made into whether the Whittington hospital could cope with both its own and the Royal Northern hospital's casualties and admissions from casualty. It was found that not only were there not enough beds near the accident unit at the Whittington hospital and that existing beds were full, but also that admission procedures and information systems were already chaotic. Neither the area health authority nor the regional health authority has explained how it will deal with those problems after the closure of the casualty department at the Royal Northern hospital, although they accept the criticisms of the shortcomings at the Whittington hospital.
  I recognise the anomaly of needing to support counter-proposals to a proposal—that of the area health authority and of the regional health authority—which would, if implemented, subvert the very objectives it sets out to achieve. The area health authority has said that the purpose of its proposal to close the Royal Northern casualty department is to create a better accident or casualty service and to rationalise it. Islington's community health council's investigations and conclusions are that inpatient services would be less efficient and more costly if the area health authority's proposals were implemented and in the counter-proposals it has shown alternatives that could provide a more efficient inpatient service.
  The real challenge to the area health authority's proposals to close the casualty units at the Royal Northern hospital is to produce two complementary hospitals and, in them, the body of one district general hospital. That cannot be tackled through amputation, and it is therefore proposed that the area health authority should implement

  533
  the recommendations contained in Islington community health council's proposals for immediate improvement in the accident emergency unit and inpatient services at the Whittington hospital. Secondly it is proposed that the district management team and area health authority should review their systems for the collection and transmission of information.
  Thirdly, it is proposed that a full statistical and policy study of how our services—inpatient and accident/emergency—are being used should be carried out, together with an assessment of why patients use the services that they do. Fourthly, it is proposed that, on the basis of such comprehensive and detailed information, a plan for the best organisation of hospital services during the development of the Whittington site should be worked out, consistent with the long-term strategy of avoiding duplication of services and creating a two-site district general hospital.
  In the absence of such remedial measures, information or plan, the area health authority's proposal to close the Royal Northern's casualty department is, at the very least, premature and destructive of very positive aspects of existing services. Indeed, the proposal jeopardises the level and quantity of our future services.
  In conclusion, it will be recalled that the Minister agreed to meet those hon. Members concerned before reaching any decision on the proposals to close the Royal Northern's casualty department. Such a meeting has not taken place, but I hope that I have said enough to convince the Minister that no case whatsoever can be made for the immediate closure of the casualty department and that a case could not be made until the Whittington hospital was in a position to cope with the additional heavy load that the closure would impose on its accident/emergency department and inpatient services.
  The Minister's colleague has said that he will listen carefully to all the proposals; until the new Whittington hospital is built, no part of the Royal Northern hospital should be closed.
  11.6 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social SecurityI know that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) has taken a long and continuing interest in the proposed closure of the accident and emergency department of the Royal Northern hospital and has been a very strong advocate of the health needs of his constituents, as indeed have the other hon. Members with local constituencies, including my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the disabled, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). This is a complex issue and I want to put this proposal into the context of the local health needs of the district.
  I know the area well, as I live locally. In my time, I have visited both hospitals as a patient. I have read the continuing saga of the proposed changes in our excellent local newpaper, the Hampstead and Highgate Express. Although Ministers may sometimes not have had an opportunity to see the subject under discussion, I have had such an opportunity and know the problems.
  Islington is an inner city district with a high rate of social deprivation, including poor and inadequate housing, often overcrowded and lacking in basic amenities. These environmental factors have an effect on people's susceptibility to illness and the capacity of the community to support those who might otherwise be cared for at home
  534
  rather than in hospital. In addition Islington, like so many other inner London boroughs, has a declining population, with the elderly forming an ever-increasing proportion of the total.
  It is fair to say that the fundamental problem for the responsible health authority is the maldistribution of resources between the different sectors of health care. For while Islington is well provided in the acute sector, there are serious deficiencies in the primary care services, services for the elderly, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in recent years a number of reports have drawn the attention of Members to these problems. The reports of the London Health Planning Consortium "Acute Hospital Services in London" and the London Advisory Group indicated that the district should achieve a significant reduction in the number of acute beds and from the resources thus released—the hon. Gentleman will accept that this is an important point—aim to improve primary care services and those for the mentally ill, mentally handicapped and elderly. The London Health Planning Consortium calculated that the district had 280 acute beds too many. Both regional and area health authorities are aware of the need to do something to correct this obvious imbalance. One of the region's major strategic objectives, as stated on numerous occasions, is:
  "To continue, either through the use of growth monies or by transfer from the acute sector, the increase of funds available for primary care and the long-stay sectors".
  The area's strategic plan declares its objectives to be
  "the rationalisation of hospital resources to meet deficiencies in services for geriatrics, mental handicap, and other special categories, while at the same time keeping all services at a satisfactory level",
  and
  "to develop health care services throughout the area with emphasis on the further development of primary care services".
  I fully support these objectives. The Government have been making a positive contribution to this development through the additional money that they provide to inner-city partnerships. While I was at the Department of the Environment for two years I chaired the Hackney and Islington partnership committee at, on occasion, somewhat stormy meetings. The hon. Gentleman is now in a different position from when he started as, indeed, are quite a few of the Islington representatives whom I met on that partnership committee. It provided me with an opportunity to gain an insight into some of the stranger activities of the Labour Party in Islington.
  The Health Service problems of the district have been recognised by the Hackney and Islington inner city partnership, of which the Camden and Islington Area Health Authority is a member.
  Although the main priorities of the partnership are the promotion of economic regeneration and employment and the improvement of the physical environment, there has always been a substantial health component in its programme and that is directed towards primary and community care. Apart from partnership money, in the current economic climate, Islington health district cannot expect additional resources. If the so-called Cinderella services are to be improved, the money must be found from savings elsewhere—through greater efficiency and through a rationalisation of acute services. It is the responsibility of the health authorities to bring forward plans on these lines. The area health authority and the

  535
  health district have made great efforts to attempt to save money and to tackle the fundamental imbalance in the district's health services.
  The proposal to close the Royal Northern hospital accident and emergency department has to be seen against this difficult and complex background. It arises from the fact that nearly all the district's acute services are provided by the Whittington and Royal Northern hospitals, which are about one mile apart, with some duplication of services including, on each site, accident and emergency departments intended to operate a 24-hour, seven days a week service. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands from his knowledge of the area, the district finds it difficult to staff and run two major accident and emergency departments so close together. At times the Royal Northern accident and emergency department has been closed because of these difficulties.
  To rationalise the district's acute services, the AHA has been planning to integrate the Whittington and Royal Northern hospitals into a two-site district general hospital, with major redevelopment at the Whittington, to close the accident and emergency department at the Royal Northern hospital and to centralise the district's accident and emergency services at the Whittington hospital.
  As the hon. Member knows and has told us clearly today, this proposal has been the subject of lively local debate for a considerable time. My colleagues and I are fully aware of the considerable local affection for the Royal Northern hospital and the worries about its future. My hon. Friend the Minister of State visited the hospital last year to gain first-hand knowledge of local views and he asked his officials to hold discussions with all interested parties.
  At that time, in the light of the need to reduce the acute beds in the district, the strategy was to concentrate acute services at the Whittington, reduce the number of beds at the Royal Northern and change the use of the hospital to geriatric care. During a second visit to the hospital in May 1980 my hon. Friend announced that he was determined to see that the Royal Northern continued to thrive and have a major role for the future. He said that he would not agree to any plan for developing the Whittington hospital that did not include keeping a viable, worthwhile service at the Royal Northern hospital.
  My hon. Friend thought that the future must lie in treating both the Whittington and the Royal Northern as one district general hospital complex on two different sites and planning the services accordingly so that both hospitals have s sensible, balanced, range of work. My hon. Friend stated that he would expect some acute work to remain at the Royal Northern, particularly so that the good operating theatres could continue to be used.
  However, my hon. Friend made it clear that it could not be right to duplicate all services. He could not see any justification for keeping two accident and emergency departments so near to each other. He said that before the accident and emergency department at the Royal Northern could be permanently closed there would be local consultations. He added that if the proposal were not accepted locally, it would be referred for ministerial decision but that unless the consultation procedures produced some major new factors he would have to agree to the closure of the department. This is still our position, and the matter has been now referred to us for decision.
  536
  Meanwhile, planning for the redevelopment of the Whittington hospital is proceeding on the basis that, with the Royal Northern, it will form a two-site district general hospital.
  A working group, including the chairmen of the two hospital medical committees and the chairman of the community health council, has been advising on bed allocations between the two sites. However, the first phase of rebuilding is not expected to be completed until the late 1980s.
  The closure or change of use of health buildings is governed by carefully worked-out procedures issued by my Department. These procedures ensure that area health authorities undertake full consultations with a wide range of local interests, including local Members of Parliament and community health councils. If the community health council wishes to object to a closure or change of use, it may submit to the AHA a constructive and detailed counter-proposal. In the event of local disagreement, the AHA must refer the matter to the regional health authority, which, if if supports the AHA, must seek the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the proposal.
  The Camden and Islington area health authority issued a formal consultation document in July 1980. The Islington community health council produced a counterproposal and this, together with other comments, was presented to the AHA in April 1981. We have seen copies of the papers considered by the authority. The objections were set out at great length; many of them were reproduced in full, including those of the Royal Northern hospital medical staff committee and the community health council.
  The AHA deferred its final decision pending discussions with the Islington district general hospital medical committee on certain necessary arrangements of work, accommodation and staff duties. At its meeting in May the AHA reconsidered the outcome of consultation, having before it the views of this medical committee and further comments from the CHC. The authority decided to reaffirm its proposal to close the department and to refer the matter to the regional health authority as required by the closure procedures.
  The AHA claims that the proposed changes would save about £200,000 per annum on the current cost of running the two units and would result in the best possible accident and emergency service for the district. In order to meet some of the objections, the AHA has undertaken that, if my right hon. Friend agrees to the proposal, it will not be implemented until improvements to the Whittington accident and emergency department are completed. These alterations are in progress and should be completed early next year.
  The AHA has also decided that the closure would not be implemented until it is satisfied with changes to the administrative system for patient admissions, bed distributions between the Whittington and Royal Northern hospitals and the consequential staffing changes. The authority has also undertaken to ensure that patients arriving at the Royal Northern hospital are directed to the Whittington accident and emergency department and assisted where necessary by the provision of transport and summoning of interim medical or nursing help. The AHA is also seeking, in conjunction with the family practitioner committee and local GPs, to improve access to primary health care in Islington.

  537
  The regional health authority considered the AHA's proposal in July, decided to support it and referred the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his decision. We have been studying the papers, including the CHC counter-proposal, very carefully. They are weighty documents indeed, but we expect to make a decision soon.
  It would not be right for me to comment today on the merits of the AHA's case or the arguments against it. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has undertaken to meet again the hon. Member for Islington, North and other hon.
  538
  Members to discuss the proposal. I have, as I know the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, listened very carefully to him. I hope that he will accept that his views, which I shall convey to my hon. Friend, and those of others who have commented, will be taken fully into account before a final decision is made. That decision will reflect our judgment of what is in the best interests of all the residents of Islington and the others who use its health services.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

INDUSTRY

  British Leyland
  Mr. Chris Patten asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much financial assistance has been provided to British Leyland in each year since its nationalisation; and how much assistance is expected to be provided in the current year .
  Mr. Norman Lamont:
  The Government acquired the majority of the shares of British Leyland—now BL—Ltd. held by private and other investors under a scheme of arrangement which came into effect 11 August 1975 .

  Government funding since then has been as follows:

  1975–76

  £200 million

  Equity (under British Leyland Act 1975)

  1976–77

  £100 million

  Loans (converted to equity 31 March 1980)

  1977–78

  £50 million

  Loan (converted to equity 31 March 1980)

  1978–79

  £450 million

  Equity

  1979–80

  £150 million

  Equity

  1980–81

  £300 million

  Equity

  The then Secretary of State's statement of 26 January 1981 explained that the Government had approved BL's 1981 corporate plan and had agreed to provide the associated funding requirement of £620 million in 1981–82 and £370 million in 1982–83. Of this, £450 million has been advanced to date.

  BL companies have also received regional development grants and two interest relief grants under the Industry Act 1972—as amended—The following figures have been taken from information published quarterly in the British Business magazine:

  *Regional Development Grants £ million

  Interest Grants £ million

  1975–76

  †1.159

  —

  1976–77

  0.799

  0.099

  1977–78

  2.369

  0.571

  1978–79

  4.293

  0.590

  1979–80

  1.646

  0.127

  1980–81

  2.086

  0.019

  1981–82

  ‡2.160

  ‡0.116

  * Information about payments of regional development grant over £25,000 has, since 1 October 1974, been published each quarter in British Business. This is the source for these figures. The totals of regional development grants individually worth less than £25,000 cannot be provided without disproportionate effort.
  † From 1 July 1975
  ‡To 30 June 1981

  Assistance provided for research and development work is commercially confidential, and details are not published.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Dalyell asked the Secretary of State for Industry

  whether, following the abolition of the Waste
  194
  Management Advisory Council, he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the War on Waste Campaign;

  whether he is taking steps to promote a policy of reclamation of resources at a national level;

  who, or which organisation, is responsible for waste management following the abolition of the Waste Management Advisory Council.

  Mr. MacGregor:
  The Department of Industry and the Department of the Environment work closely together through their respective units with responsibility for reclamation and recycling, but the Government look principally to industry to take steps to ensure that waste materials are recycled where it is economic to do so. The Government remain committed to the objective of encouraging reclamation activities to develop to their optimum level, and there is direct and informal cooperation between central and local Government, industry and other interests concerned. For example, I was pleased to attend the recent launch of extended recycling activities by the metal can manufacturers.

  Upper Waiting Hall (Exhibition)
  Mr. Pawsey asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will arrange for an exhibition relating to Warwickshire county council to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 26 October to Friday 30 October.
  Mr. Norman Lamont:
  Yes. Arrangements have been made for such an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall to take place from Monday 26 October to Friday 30 October 1981.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Grylls asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will ensure that the Government's small firms loan guarantee scheme introduced on 1 June 1981 is not curtailed or halted when the initial limit set of £50 million is reached in the next few weeks.
  Mr. MacGregor:
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on Wednesday 21 October to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin). At the end of September guarantees had been issued for loans totalling £28.5 million .

  Public Services (Costs and Charges)
  Mr. Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether, in support of the Government's policy of a 4 per cent. wage ceiling, he will also apply this limit to the costs and charges made by the public services to the public.
  Mr. Brittan:
  I have been asked to reply.

  No: the financial and economic considerations involved are different. In any event, the 4 per cent. pay factor announced on 15 Septemer is a broad measure of what the Government think reasonable and can be afforded as a general allowance for increases in public service pay at the present stage of planning public expenditure: it does not imply that all public service pay increases will or should be 4 per cent.—some may be less and some may be more.

SCOTLAND

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Ernie Ross asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures are being taken to reduce the number of cases of hypothermia in the coming winter; and what part he expects health boards, local authorities and the fuel boards to play .
  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  The authorities concerned are well aware of the dangers of hypothermia, especially among the elderly in very cold weather, and work closely together to minimise the risks .

  This year, in addition to the usual distribution of a leaflet for the elderly, the Scottish Health Education Group has produced a resource pack of helpful information for organisations in touch with elderly people to distribute as appropriate. A set of this material is being placed in the Library.

  Unemployed persons
  Mr. Ernie Ross asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the average annual number of those unemployed for one year or more in Scotland in each year since 1970 .
  Mr. Alexander Fletcher:
  The following table shows annual averages of those unemployed for more than one year in each year since 1970. Due to changes in the method of compiling statistics and because some figures are not available the totals for each year are not directly comparable.

  Year

  Annual average

  1970

  16,059

  1971

  20,122

  1972

  28,203

  1973

  29,447

  1974

  21,153

  1975

  21,507

  1976

  25,850

  1977

  36,639

  1978

  43,040

  1979

  45,864

  1980

  49,187

  Notes:1970–73 and 1976–77 figures are based on returns made in January and July of those years.1974–75 totals relate to July returns only. January figures not available.1978 total based on returns made in January, July and October. April figures not available.

  Dundee Skillcenter
  Mr. Ernie Ross asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in light of the fact that 15,659 people are unemployed in Dundee, he will now authorise an expansion in the number of places available for re-training at the Dundee skillcenter .
  Mr. Alexander Fletcher:
  I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that training capacity at Dundee skillcenter has been increased by 32 places over the past year. Two additional skill classes have been introduced as have facilities for vocational assessment designed to meet the needs of the longer term unemployed. These new courses will allow the skillcenter to cater for around 160 additional trainees annually .
  196
  The Dundee skillcenter represents only a small proportion of the commission's overall training provision in Tayside which will provide opportunities for some 1,000 adults in 1981–82 .

  Agricultural Land Sales
  Mr. McQuarrie asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to establish a record of all agricultural land which has been sold in Scotland to institutions and pension funds in the years 1979, 1980 and the first six months of 1981, with the names of the purchasers.
  Mr. Younger:
  The Northfield committee, which reported in 1979, recommended that these acquisitions should be closely monitored and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has maintained records of such acquisitions, including those by pension funds, since 1980.

ENVIRONMENT

  "New Uses for Special Development Orders"
  Mr. O'Halloran asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him by the Highgate Society concerning the consultation letter "New Uses for Special Development Orders", by which planning permission could be automatically assumed for certain categories of development; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Giles Shaw:
  The Highgate Society wrote to my right hon. Friend on 14 September expressing opposition to any new use of special development orders. The Department acknowledged its letter on 24 September and assured the society that its views would be taken into account. Decisions have yet to be taken on the extent to which the SDO procedure might be used .

  Reservoirs
  Mr. Moate asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action is taken to ensure that all reservoir undertakings comply with the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930 particularly with regard to the keeping of weekly records of water levels, leakage, repairs and so on; which authorities are responsible for appointing inspecting engineers; and how many prosecutions there have been for non-compliance with the Act;

  what would be the cost of implementing the Reservoirs Act 1975; and what extra manpower would need to be employed;

  if he is satisfied with the level of observance and enforcement of the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930; and, if not, what steps are being taken in this connection;

  if it is his intention ever to introduce orders under the Reservoirs Act 1975 in order to bring the provisions of the Act into force.

  Mr. Giles Shaw:
  As I explained in my letter of 20 March 1981 to my hon. Friend and in my answer to him on 22 October, steps are already well in hand to secure better application of the 1930 Act by the local authorities and others concerned. When I can judge the results of this initiative, I intend to review the whole question of

  197
  legislative control of reservoir safety in the light of any remaining problems. Meanwhile I have no reason to change my view that bringing in the 1975 Act now would make no significant difference to the effectiveness of statutory controls but would lead to considerable expenditure of money and manpower for new administrative arrangements.

  Inspecting engineers under the 1930 Act are appointed by the undertakers responsible for each reservoir, but appointments can be made only from those enrolled on the appropriate panel, maintained by the Secretary of State with the advice of the Institution of Civil Engineers. The same arrangements would apply under the 1975 Act.

  No central records are kept of enforcement action taken in the courts under the 1930 Act; I believe that few, if any, such cases have arisen.

  Mr. Moate asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if there is a register of all sizeable reservoirs and dams in Great Britain: and what is the precise total number of reservoirs of over 5 million gallons capacity.

  Mr. Giles Shaw:
  The best available information is contained in my answer of 20 May 1981 to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine).—[Vol. 5, c. 118]—My hon. Friend may also be interested in the answer I gave on 30 March 1981 to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley).—[Vol. 2, c. 45–6.]

  Looe Plaidy Coastal Protection Scheme
  Mr. Hicks asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the result of the application by the Caradon district council for grant aid for the Looe Plaidy coastal protection scheme; and if he will give the details of his decision.
  Mr. Giles Shaw:
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has determined this application and a grant undertaking of £109,880, being 43 per cent. of the grant eligible cost of the Looe Plaidy scheme, is being sent to the Caradon district council.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Milk Bottles
  Mr. Speller asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in view of the frequent use of milk bottles for explosive devices, he will estimate the cost of converting the supply of milk in Northern Ireland from bottle to cartons and make the necessary financial provision.
  Mr. Adam Butler:
  The cost of replacing milk bottling facilities with the additional cartoning equipment which would be necessary would be about £3¼ million. Cartons are more expensive to use than bottles and the additional cost of using cartons for all milk sold in Northern Ireland would be approximately £3 million per annum. Bearing in mind that glass containers other than milk bottles can be used for petrol bombs, I do not believe that this expenditure could be justified.

  De Lorean Research Limited Partnership
  Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is the major partner in the De Lorean research limited partnership.
  Mr. Adam Butler:
  I understand that under the Michigan Limited Partnership Act a partnership of this type has one general partner and a number of limited partners. The De Lorean Motor Company is the general partner in the De Lorean Research Limited Partnership and there are approximately 125 limited partnership interests. The profits drawing from the royalties paid to the partnership are allocated on the basis of 99 per cent. to the limited partners and 1 per cent. to the general partner.

  De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd.
  Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any further application for financial assistance has been received from De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Adam Butler:
  No application for selective assistance additional to that already notified to the House has been made by De Lorean Motor Cars Limited. The company has lodged a number of grant claims under the Industrial Investment (General Assistance) (Northern Ireland) Act 1966—as amended—under which standard grants are payable in respect of eligible capital expenditure. These are under consideration.

  Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place copies in the Library of the agreement between his Department and De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. and the agreement between De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. and Lotus Cars Ltd., stating the value of the contract; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Adam Butler:
  No. The agreement between the Department of Commerce, the Northern Ireland Development Agency, De Lorean Motor Cars Limited, De Lorean Motor Company and Mr. De Lorean was concluded on a basis of commercial confidentiality. The agreement entered into with Lotus Cars Ltd. is a matter for the company and the De Lorean Research Limited Partnership.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tax Threshold
  Mr. Field asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of raising the tax threshold to (a) the supplementary benefit level and (b) the family income supplement eligibility level.
  Mr. Ridley:
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. McQuarrie asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now reconsider his decision not to grant relief from the payment of value added tax to the Spastics Society.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne [pursuant to his reply, 21 October 1981]: No. Singling out the Spastics Society for relief from the payment of value added tax would not be justified.

  Civil Servants' Dispute (Value Added Tax)
  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to compensate

  199
  companies and firms which were owed sums of money from value added tax as a result of the civil servants' dispute; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne [pursuant to his reply, 22 October 1981]: None. The backlog of repayments of value added tax outstanding at the end of the civil servants' industrial action has now been cleared and subsequent claims for repayment are being dealt with promptly. Special arrangements were made during the industrial action to allow income tax, and other debts due to the Crown, to be offset against delayed repayments of VAT.
  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated amount of value added tax payments that were not collected due to the civil servants' dispute; and how much he estimates the Government had to pay in interest charges as a result of not collecting this revenue.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne [pursuant to his reply, 22 October, 1981]: It is estimated that at the end of September the amount of VAT payments not collected owing to the dispute was about £3,500 million. During the dispute repayments of VAT to traders who normally receive them could not be made. It is estimated that interest on borrowing the net deficiency has been about £30 million.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Institute of Hearing Research
  Mr. Alfred Morris asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the work of the Institute of Hearing Research.
  Mr. William Shelton:
  The wide programme of research being undertaken by the Medical Research Council's Institute of Hearing Research continues to develop well. The institute's report for 1980, a copy of which is available in the Library, summarises the work in progress both at Nottingham and in the institute's outstations.

DEFENCE

  HMS "Pembroke"
  Mr. Peter Griffiths asked the Secretary of State for Defence where he intends to relocate the activities at present carried on at HMS "Pembroke"; and if he will take full account of the capacity of the naval base at Portsmouth in making any decision.
  Mr. Wiggin:
  Following on from Cmnd.8288 part of the comprehensive review being carried out to determine the most appropriate and cost effective Royal Navy shore organisation will be concerned with the future location of work presently being done at HMS "Pembroke". That review takes full account of the facilities at Portsmouth naval base.

  Royal Marines School of Music
  Mr. Peter Griffiths asked the Secretary of State for Defence if it is still his intention that the Royal Marines School of Music should move to Portsmouth.
  Mr. Blaker:
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the announcement several years ago of a plan to move
  200
  the Royal Marines School of Music from Deal to Eastney. However, earlier this year it was decided to institute a review of the long-term location of the school of music with a view to securing maximum economy, as was explained at the time in a letter sent by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, to my hon. Friend. That review, which is taking into account new circumstances following the changes in the defence programme announced in Cmnd. 8288, is not yet complete.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk Production (Binder-Hamlyn Report)
  Mr. Morgan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to take any action on the recommendations of the Binder-Hamlyn report on milk production.
  Mr. Peter Walker:
  Yes. Since my announcement of 16 April in reply to the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), discussions have been continuing with the Dairy Trade Federation and other interested parties regarding the detailed applications of Binder Hamlyn's recommendations.—[Vol. 3, c. 224–5.] I intend to make a further statement about this shortly.

  Beef Sales
  Mr. Morgan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent, in percentage terms, United Kingdom domestic beef sales fell in 1980 compared with 1979.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith:
  Supplies of beef moving into consumption in the United Kingdom fell by 4 9 per cent. in 1980 compared with 1979.

  Unfit Meat and Knacker Meat
  Mr. Farr asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has received the report of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers relating to the illegal trade in unfit meat; and whether he intends to reintroduce the habit of staining unfit meat and knacker meat.
  Mrs. Fenner:
  I have received a copy of this report. Ideas for amending the law, including the possibility of reintroducing staining in certain circumstances, will be put shortly to the main organisations concerned with a view to arriving at improved safeguards which take account of all the interests involved.

  Certification of Meat (Qualifications)
  Mr Dickens asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when environmental health officers will be recognised as qualified to certify meat in accordance with the Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1981.
  Mrs Fenner:
  The Government's objective is to secure recognition in Brussels that environmental health officers, as well as veterinary surgeons, are qualified in the United Kingdom to carry out supervision and provide public health certification of meat products under the Community

  201
  directive on intra-Community trade in meat products. They are also aiming to secure similar recognition for EHOs in relation to poultry cutting premises and cold stores separate from poultry slaughterhouses, but not for similar duties under the Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1981. Discussions on the recognition EHOs for work in meat products plants and poultry cutting and storage premises have recently begun in a Council working group.

  Land Loss (Stansted Airport)
  Sir John Biggs-Davison asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much agricultural land, and of what quality, would be lost if Stansted airport were to be developed as desired by the British Airports Authority.
  Mrs Fenner:
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and for the Environment have appointed an inspector to consider the British Airports Authority's planning proposals to develop Stansted airport. The issues, which are raised by these proposals, are now the subject of examination at the public inquiry and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on such matters at this stage.

  Timber Felling (Licences)

  Mr Bob Cryer asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is undertaking any review of the criteria used when granting felling licences for timber; what representations have been made regarding timber felling; and if he will make a statement.

  Table one: Families not receiving supplementary benefit

  December 1977 Thousands

  Employment category

  Below supplementary benefit level

  Above supplementary benefit level but within 10 per cent. of it

  Above supplementary benefit level but within 20 per cent. of it

  Above supplementary benefit level but within 40 per cent. of it

  Families

  Children

  Families

  Children

  Families

  Children

  Families

  Children

  In full time work or self employed

  One parent families

  (10)

  (30)

  (10*)

  (10*)

  (10)

  (40)

  (30)

  70

  Two parent families

  110

  250

  100

  230

  300

  690

  790

  1,750

  Sick or disabled for more than 3 months

  One and two parent families

  (20)

  (30)

  (10*)

  (30)

  (40)

  110

  70

  160

  Unemployed for more than three months

  One and two parent families

  (40)

  90

  (10)

  (20)

  (20)

  (40)

  (30)

  (50)

  Other one and two parent families

  (20)

  (20)

  (10*)

  (20)

  (30)

  60

  (40)

  110

  Total number of families and children

  200

  420

  140

  310

  410

  930

  970

  2,140

  Note: * indicates that the number in the group is below 10,000.

  Table Two: Families Receiving Supplementary Benefit

  December 1977 Thousands

  Employment category

  One parent families

  Two parent families

  Families

  Children

  Families

  Children

  Sick or disabled for more than three months

  [10*]

  [10*]

  [10]

  [30]

  Unemployed for more than three months

  [10*]

  [10*]

  140

  360

  Others

  310

  570

  [10*]

  [10*]

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  330

  590

  160

  400

  Note *indicates that the number in the group is below 10,000.
  202
  Mr Peter Walker:
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 31 July 1981.—[Vol 955, c. 1405–6.] No representations have been received regarding the criteria taken into account by the Forestry Commission when considering applications for felling licences in terms of the Forestry Act 1967.

  SOCIAL SERVICES

  Family Incomes

  Mr. Ashley asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, at the latest time for which the information is available, how many children were living in families below the supplementary benefit level, on supplementary benefit and with incomes up to 10 per cent. 20 per cent., and 40 per cent. above supplementary benefit level, classified by the employment status of the head of the family; and whether there were one or two parents.

  Mrs Chalker:
  The information is shown in the following tables. For families not receiving supplementary benefit, it is not possible to break down the estimates in table one between one and two parent families, other than for those who are in full-time work or self-employed, because the samples are too small. For families receiving supplementary benefit, there is a full breakdown in table two but the right hon. Gentleman will note that the sample sizes in some of these groups are very small. I hope that figures for 1979 will be available around the turn of the year.

  203
  Notes on the Tables
  Table One—Families not receiving supplementary benefit.

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000. Consequently the sum of the component parts may not equal the total.

  The estimates are based on a Department of Health and Social Security analysis of incomes and other information recorded by respondents to the Family Expenditure Survey. They are subject to statistical error. Those figures in square brackets are subject to very considerable proportionate statistical error.

  The estimates relate only to the population living in private households. Families and persons in institutions are not sampled in the Family Expenditure Survey.

  The supplementary benefit level is taken as being the supplementary benefit scale rate(s) appropriate to the family using the long term rates for pensioners only.

  Income refers to net income including all benefits, less housing costs, travel-to-work expenses, income tax and national insurance contributions as appropriate.

  The comparison is based on the family's normal income in the normal employment of the family head. For example, where the head of the family had been off work due to sickness or unemployment for less than three months at the time of the survey, the family's normal income when the head was at work was used in determining their level of income.

  The estimates of numbers of families with income below the supplementary benefit level do not indicate unclaimed entitlement to supplementary benefit. For example, those who are in full time work or undertaking full time further education would not normally have entitlement to supplementary benefit. For others not precluded from claiming, no regard is had in these estimates to factors such as disregarded income, treatment of capital or exceptional circumstances additions, each of which can affect payment of supplementary benefit.

  Table Two—Families Receiving Supplementary Benefit.
  Estimates of those receiving supplementary benefit are derived from the Annual Statistical Enquiry of Supplementary Benefit Claimants.

  New Cross School

  Mr. Peter Griffiths asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has for the future of dental therapist training and courses in dental therapy at the New Cross school.

  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg:
  The recent report of the dental strategy review group recommended that the School for Dental Therapists at New Cross should be closed. No decisions have yet been taken. We are consulting widely on this and the group's other recommendations, and the views of interested bodies and individuals will be taken carefully into account before any decisions are made.

  Health Services (Public Spending)
  Mr. Ashley asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will introduce legislation to place upon health authorities a duty to provide a particular service in a particular place for long-term mental patients and psychogeriatrics even when constraints are placed on public expenditure;

  if he will take steps to improve the position of longterm mental patients and psychogeriatrics who lack adequate medical facilities;

  what is his estimate of the number of long-term mental patients who have experienced reduced services as a result of public expenditure constraints;

  how many hospitals in the United Kingdom have stopped admission of long-term mental patients and psychogeriatrics; and if he will list the health authorities and hospitals concerned.

  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg:
  I set out in my reply of 21 October to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones)
  204
  a number of steps which we have already taken to improve the position of elderly psychiatric patients. We are concerned about their needs and will keep this matter under careful review, but there are no plans to alter the duties placed on health authorities by the National Health Service Act 1977. The services provided by health authorities depend on the resources available to them. Current expenditure by health authorities in 1981–82 is planned to be 4 per cent. above the level for 1978–79. I regret that information about any districts where there have been reductions in the beds available for this group of patients, resulting in a reduction in admissions, is not available centrally.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Field asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list those organisations he contacted to ask their views in the change to the monthly payments of child benefit.
  Mrs. Chalker:
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) on 19 December 1980—[Vol. 996, c. 528.]

  Mr. Field asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of organisations which gave evidence to his Department on the changes in the method of paying child benefit; and what was the number in favour and the number against the change to monthly payments.

  Mrs. Chalker:
  The proposal for changing the frequency of paying child benefit was set out in the Government's reply to the "First Report of the Social Services Committee on Arrangements for Paying Social Security Benefits"—Cmnd 8106—published in December 1980. About 100 organisations submitted views to the Department on that proposal. Most of them objected to the proposal to pay child benefit every four weeks to most mothers. Criticisms varied, but the general theme running through many of the responses was that mothers should be able to make a voluntary choice between weekly or four-weekly payment.

  Mr. Field asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will detail what arrangements he is making to advertise the rights of those parents who are ineligible to continue claiming child benefit weekly.

  Mrs. Chalker:
  All mothers whose entitlement to child benefit begins before 15 March 1982 can choose to continue with weekly payment; mothers whose entitlement to child benefit begins on or after 15 March 1982 will normally be paid child benefit every four weeks in arrears. But if they are lone parents, or if the family is in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement, or if they establish hardship arising out of four-weekly payment they can choose to be paid weekly. These rights will be explained in the child benefit leaflet, on the claim form, and in order book notes. In addition, a poster will be displayed in post offices during the change-over period informing mothers of the switch to four-weekly payment and setting out when child benefit can be paid weekly.

  National Radiological Protection Board
  Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the proposal to

  205
  close the northern center of the National Radiological Protection Board, giving he number of jobs lost and the alternative means envisaged of carrying out the work.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg:
  This is primarily a matter for the National Radiological Protection Board. I understand that the board has decided against closure of the northern center for the present and will be considering longer term arrangements there and elsewhere for the organisation of the services it provides.

WALES

  Milk Producers
  Mr. Morgan asked the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent the number of milk producers in Wales has decreased since 1971 (a) in actual numerical and (b) percentage terms.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards:
  Between December 1971 and June 1981, the number of registered milk producers in Wales decreased by 6,934, or by 47.5 per cent.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Middle East
  Mr. Moyle asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will list the steps taken to advance the European initiative on the Middle East and the Venice declaration by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs since he assumed Chairmanship of the EEC Council of Foreign Ministers in July.
  Mr. Hurd:
  The Ten have, under the British Presidency, maintained and renewed their commitment to an active role in the search for Middle East peace on the basis of the principles set out on the Venice declaration. My right hon. and noble Friend and other Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers and officials, have maintained close and constant contact to this end with all the parties concerned, including the United States. My right hon. and noble Friend is visiting Saudi Arabia in early November on behalf of the Ten to discuss with the Saudi Government the principles for a settlement set out by Crown Prince Fahd in August, which we have welcomed as a constructive contribution to the search for Middle East peace.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

  European University Institute, Florence
  Mr. Pavitt asked the Lord Privy Seal what has been the total of funds granted by the United Kingdom to sustain the Common Market European University Institute in Florence since its inception; and how many British students there have been at the institute.
  Mr. Humphrey Atkins:
  A total of £2.6 million has been granted by the United Kingdom to the European University Institute in Florence. Forty-two British postgraduate research students have studied there since students were first accepted in 1976.

PRIME MINISTER

  Gifts to Ministers
  Mr. Cryer asked the Prime Minister whether the rules governing gifts to Ministers still provide for the maximum value of a gift; what the maximum is now set at; and if the rules apply to spouses.
  Mr. Whitelaw:
  I have been asked to reply.

  Yes. The rule allows a Minister in appropriate cases to retain a gift of a value not exceeding £50. This rule also applies to spouses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sex Shops
  Mr. Skeet asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation in the new Session to control the opening of sex shops in England and Wales.
  Mr. Mayhew:
  My right hon. Friend has expressed his support for the inclusion of provisions in a Greater London Councils (General Powers) Bill to enable borough councils in Greater London to introduce licensing arrangements for such establishments. He has no plans to introduce Government legislation in the coming Session, but is keeping the matter under close review in the light of the considerable degree of public concern, of which he is well aware.

  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Sir John Biggs-Davison asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advantage has been taken by immigrants of the facilities and financial assistance provided by his Department for repatriation.
  Mr. Raison:
  Over the last 10 years arrangements made under section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971 have helped 1,619 people to leave the United Kingdom.

  Offences Against the Person Act 1861
  Mr. Warren asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report from the Law Commission following its review of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; and what action he anticipates taking for its reform.
  Mr. Mayhew:
  The law relating to offences against the person was reviewed by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which published its report—Cmnd. 7844—in March 1980. I have since consulted a large number of interested bodies about the committee's recommendations, and am considering the report in the light of the comments I have received.

TRANSPORT
  Transport Policies and Programme

    (Greater Manchester)
    Mr. Alfred Morris asked the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the Greater

    207
    Manchester council's submission to his Department for 1982–83 on transport policies and programme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Howell:
    I am giving careful consideration to the transport policies and programmes of all county councils, including that of Greater Manchester. My decisions will be announced in the normal way in the transport supplementary grant settlement for 1982–83.

  Airedale Trunk Road
  Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received the inspector's report into the proposed Airedale trunk road; when he expects to make a decision on the proposal; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke:
  We have now received the inspector's report and are considering it. I expect to be able to announce a decision by next spring.

  M1 (Repairs and Maintenance)
  Mr. Hardy asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reduce the lengths of carriageways on the M1 motorway currently closed for repair and maintenance in the light of the fact that a large proportion of such lengths are not occupied by contractors.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke:
  No. We seek to ensure that lengths of motorway are not coned off without good reason, although I realise that motorists often cannot see any apparent activity justifying closure. In particular, it has to be remembered that newly laid concrete and asphalt takes time to cure and that motorways cannot be used safely until the last small items of debris are removed. The lengths currently under repair will be reopened progressively during the next six weeks as contracts are completed.

  British Rail Hovercraft (Merger)
  Mr. Neale asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has approved the merger between British Rail Hovercraft and Hoverlloyd Ltd.
  Mr. David Howell:
  I have today given my consent under section 14(4) of the Transport Act 1962 to the acquisition by the British Railways Board of shares and securities in Hoverspeed, the company which is being formed by the merger of British Rail Hovercraft Ltd. and Hoverlloyd Ltd. The new company will begin operating on 25 October.

  Though jointly owned by subsidiaries of the British Railways Board and Brostroms Rederi A B, Hoverspeed will be controlled and managed by an independent board of directors. It is not the railways board's intention to exercise direct control, or to provide further finance; and on this basis the new company will be outside the public sector.

  Personal Car Imports
  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Transport, whether he has any plans to alter the law regarding people buying new cars on the Continent and personally importing them into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. David Howell [pursuant to his reply, 22 October 1981]: My concern is that the required safety and
  208
  environmental standards are met by cars coming into Great Britain. These standards are normally checked by our national type approval system from which some personal imports are exempted. I am reviewing the present arrangements for these imports to ensure they give adequate cover. No decisions have been taken and there would be full consultation before any changes were made.

TRADE

  Textiles (Imports)
  Mr. Chris Patten asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the percentage of the total sale of textiles represented by imports in each year since 1945.
  Mr. Peter Rees:
  The available information is as follows:

  Imports of Textiles as a percentage of total sales* (in terms of value)

  per cent.

  1963

  12.7

  1968

  14.6

  1970

  14.3

  1971

  16.8

  1972

  18.6

  1973

  21.0

  1974

  24.5

  1975

  23.9

  1976

  26.4

  1977

  28.3

  1978

  31.3

  1979

  33.1

  1980

  34.9

  * Total sales are calculated as sales by United Kingdom manufacturers of products principally produced by the textile industry, defined as Order XIII of the Standard Industrial Classification (Revised 1968), plus imports less exports. The activities of the textile finishing industry, Minimum List Heading 423, are not appropriate to the calculation and have been excluded from the figures.

  Energy Imports
  Mr. Skeet asked the Secretary of State for Trade what percentage of exports in each European Economic Community country is required to pay for the imports of energy comparing the position in 1972 with the latest date for which figures are available.
  Mr. Peter Rees:
  The available information is as follows:

  Imports of energy* as a percentage of total exports

  ots basis†

  1972

  1980

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  10

  19

  Denmark

  13

  26

  France

  14

  32

  Federal Republic of Germany

  8

  22

  Greece

  27

  48

  Irish Republic

  10

  19

  Italy

  16

  35

  Netherlands

  13

  25

  United Kingdom

  13

  15

  Notes: * Taken as SITC(Rev 2) Section 3
  † Exports valued fob and imports valued cif
  209

  Energy Imports

    Trade Descriptions Act
    Mr. Kilfedder asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will seek to amend the Trade Descriptions Act so as to require car bulbs to be marked with their country of origin.
    Mr. Eyre:
    As was made clear in the debate in Standing Committee on 1 April, we see no case at present for extending the scope of the new origin marking requirements.

    Companies (Formations and Liquidations)
    Mr. Wickenden asked the Secretary of State for Trade what has been the number of new company formations during 1981 to the latest practicable date; and what has been the number of company liquidations during the same period.
    Mr. Eyre:
    The number of new company registrations in England and Wales in the first nine months of 1981 was 51,282; the number of company liquidations in the same period was 9,150, of which 6,245 were due to insolvency.

    Video Tapes and Films
    Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will introduce legislation to ensure that video tapes and packaged films offered for sale or hire to the public display accurate details of footage and screen time as appropriate; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Biffen:
    I shall of course consider carefully any representations made to me on the marking of video tapes and films, but I am not aware of any need for new legal requirements in this area.

    Norwest Hoist Ltd.
    Mr. George Gardiner asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he intends to publish the report from his Department's inquiry into Norwest Hoist Ltd.; and, if so, when.
    Mr. Eyre:
    I am awaiting legal advice on follow-up action on the report, but I hope that a decision can soon be made about publication.

    Arab Boycott
    Mr. Greville Janner asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether, in view of the decision of the industrial tribunal in the case of Anthony Simmons, where it was shown that Mr. Simmons was dismissed on the grounds of his race or ethnic origin, in order to meet the requirements of the Arab boycott, he will now seek to introduce legislation to counter the Arab boycott.
    Mr. Peter Rees [pursuant to the reply, 21 October 1981]: The Government have consistently taken the view that as far as the United Kingdom is concerned legislation would not be an appropriate means of dealing with the problems created by the Arab boycott and would place further obstacles in the way of exporters. This was the recommendation of the report by a Select Committee in another place, which concluded that legislation carried with it economic risks with only uncertain benefits. This remains the Government's position.
    There is so far no reason to believe that the formal operation of the Arab boycott has been extended to involve
    210
    discrimination within the United Kingdom on the grounds of race or ethnic origin. It does not seem that at the recent industrial tribunal hearing any evidence was given that such pressure had been applied. We shall, however, continue to maintain a close watch on the operation of the Arab boycott regulations.

    European Community
    Mr. Dorrell asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he intends to take any new initiatives during the months of the British Presidency to improve the operation of the common market for goods and services in the European Community.
    Mr. Peter Rees [pursuant to the reply, 22 October 1981]: The Government are already supporting the objective of making a reality of a single European Community market for goods and services by commitment of political will and sustained technical effort over a wide range of Community activity. In particular, my Department is continuing to work for the early adoption of the insurance services directive, for progress towards more liberal arrangements for air transport and for a satisfactory solution to the problems connected with Community legislation on technical barriers to trade.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Job Creation Schemes (Take-up)
    Mr. Nicholas Baker asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the take-up for the last period for which figures are available under the job search scheme and the employment transfer scheme.
    Mr. Peter Morrison:
    The latest available figures for people assisted under the job search scheme and employment transfer scheme are

    April 1980-March 1981

    April 1981-June 1981

    (12 months)

    3 months

    Job Search Scheme

    Speculative Temporary Transfer

    103

    14

    Fares for Interview

    5,974

    1,564

    Employment Transfer Scheme

    5,669

    1,388

    Merseyside
    Mr. Parry asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures for Merseyside.
    Mr. Peter Morrison:
    At 8 October 1981 the provisional number registered as unemployed in the Merseyside special development area was 130,460. This includes school leavers and is not adjusted for seasonal variation.

    The Government remain committed to doing all they can to help with the problems of Merseyside. The hon. Member will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been asked by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to bring together and concentrate the activities of Government Departments in Merseyside, and to work with local government and the private sector to find ways of strengthening its economy and improving its environment.
    211
    In addition, a special development area Merseyside will continue to benefit from the full range of regional incentives at the highest levels available in Great Britain. These, together with Liverpool's designation as an inner city partnership area, an enterprise zone at Speke, an urban development corporation based on the docks and our programme of special employment and training measures are proof of our determination to do all we can in the short term to help the area. However, in the longer term a lasting reduction in unemployment on Merseyside, as elsewhere in the country, will be attained only by the creation of a sound and competitive economy, which the Government's policies are designed to achieve.

    Craft Apprentices
    Mr. Knox asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many craft apprentices who have completed training courses at technical college are still seeking employment.
    Mr. Peter Morrison:
    There are no comprehensive figures of the number of such apprentices still seeking employment. The vast majority of apprentices are in employment from the outset of their training and continue in the same employment after completion of any technical college course. Grants are made available through appropriate training bodies for apprentices failing to find a job on completion of sponsored training, or on becoming redundant during training, to enable training to continue until employers are found.

    £000

    1975–76

    1976–77

    1977–78

    1978–79

    1979–80

    1980–81

    ITB Operating costs

    108.7

    108.2

    140.1

    145.1

    136.7

    159.0

    Training Grants

    12.4

    24.2

    27.8

    34.0

    20.2

    15.1

    ——

    ——

    ——

    ——

    ——

    ——

    Total

    12.1

    132.4

    167.9

    179.1

    156.9

    174.1

    Support to individual firms has been given under various special employment measures. However, the details requested could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
    Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many posts are still unfilled in the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waddington:
    There are currently 95 inspectors in post and two more are due to join the inspectorate in the near future. A vigorous recruitment campaign continues and the HSE hopes to recruit up to a level of 106 posts if suitable candidates can be found.

    Health and Safety Inspectors (Administrative Posts)
    Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of qualified Health and

    Retail Prices
    Mr. Knox asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage increases in retail prices in 1980, and what the comparable figures were for 1971, 1972 and 1973.
    Mr. Waddington:
    The percentage increase in retail prices in 1980 was 13. The increases in 1971, 1972 and 1973 were 8, 8 and 12 respectively.

    Short-time Working (Calderdale)
    Dr. Summerskill asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees in the Calderdale metropolitan district were being supported by the temporary short-time working compensation scheme in July, August and September 1981.
    Mr. Peter Morrison:
    The number of potentially redundant employees covered by applications current in July 1981 in the Calderdale metropolitan district was 3,935. The figure for August 1981 was 2,049 and for September 1981 the figure was 1,776.

    Carpet Industry
    Mr. Bulmer asked the Secretary of State for Employment how much money has been given by his Department in financial support to the carpet industry since 1 January 1975; under which schemes; and if he will divide the amounts to show how much has been spent in (a) the North of England, (b) the South of England, (c) the West Midlands and (d) Wales.
    Mr. Peter Morrison:
    The following payments have been made by the Manpower Services Commission to the Carpet Industry Training Board.

    Safety Inspectors who are occupying administrative posts in the Health and Safety Executive headquarters; what is the additional cost of this; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Waddington:
    I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations
    Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what criteria were employed by the Health and Safety Commission in selecting the bodies to he consulted on the proposed Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations; if he will list those consulted and indicate the nature of the objections received; and if he will make a statement;
    (2) why the Civil Aviation Authority was excluded from consultations on the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981.
    Mr. Waddington:
    As required by section 50(3)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, the Health and Safety Commission directly consulted on the proposed

    213
    first aid regulations those bodies which appeared to it to be appropriate. Direct consultation, mainly carried out through representative bodies, was thus restricted to those bodies which would be principally affected by the proposals and professional bodies which could make a specialist contribution. These are listed below.

    The Health and Safety Commission did not consider it appropriate to consult directly the Civil Aviation Authority on the proposed regulations. It was not possible to consult directly every body with an interest because of the wide application of the proposed regulations but a public consultative document was issued and received wide publicity, and any organisation or individual was free to comment. 13,000 copies of the document were sold and over 200 comments received. The main objections received on the proposed regulations concerned the scope of first aid treatment, the responsibility of employers for persons on their premises who were not their own employees and the application of the regulations to certain industries and activities.

    List of organisations consulted

    Confederation of British Industry

    Trades Union Congress

    Government Departments

    Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

    Cabinet Office

    Civil Service Department

    Ministry of Defence

    Department of Education and Science

    Department of Employment

    Department of Energy

    Department of the Environment

    Department of Health and Social Security

    Home Office

    Department of Industry

    Lord Chancellor's Office

    Scottish Office

    Department of Trade

    Department of Transport

    Her Majesty's Treasury

    Welsh Office

    Northern Ireland Health and Safety Agency

    Local Authority Associations

    Association of County Councils

    Association of District Councils

    Association of Metropolitan Authorities

    Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

    Nationalised Industries

    British National Oil Corporation

    National Coal Board

    Employers and Trade Associations (not members of CBI)

    Conference of Medical and Surgical Adhesive Plaster Manufacturers

    Federation of Small Mines of Great Britain

    Scottish Pharmaceutical Federation

    Trade Unions and other work people's organisations (not affiliated to the TUC)

    Federation of Ambulance Personnel

    General Federation of Trade Unions

    Other bodies

    Birmingham Accident Hospitals

    Birmingham University

    British Medical Association

    British Red Cross Society

    British Safety Council

    Central Middlesex Industrial Health Service Ltd.

    Faculty of Occupational Medicine

    Greater London Council

    Harlow Industrial Health Service Ltd.

    Inner London Education Authority

    Institute of Personnel Management

    Institution of Industrial Safety Officers

    Leeds University

    National Pharmaceutical Union

    Royal College of Nursing

    Royal Life Saving Society

    214

    Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents

    St. Andrew's Ambulance Association

    St. John Ambulance Association and Brigade

    Society of Occupational Medicine

    University of Newcastle upon Tyne

    West Midlands Industrial Health Service Ltd.

    Civil Aviation Industry
    Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are employed in the civil aviation industry, excluding aircraft manufacture.
    Mr. Waddington:
    At March 1981, the latest date for which information is available, the provisional number of employees in employment in Great Britain in the air transport industry—Minimum List Heading 707 of the Standard Industrial Classification—was 84,300.

    Health and Safety Executive (First Aid)
    Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the members of the advisory committee to the Health and Safety Executive on first aid matters, together with their occupations, remuneration, functions, and tenure of office; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waddington:
    The members of the sub-committee of the Health and Safety Commission's medical advisory committee, which has been established to advise the Health and Safety Executive on first aid training, are listed below:

    Mrs. Dorothy Radwanski (Chairman)—Chief Employment Nursing Adviser, Health and Safety Executive.

    Dr. P. A. B. Raffle—Chief Medical Officer, St. John Ambulance Association.

    Dr. H. R. F. MacDonald—Chairman of Council, St. Andrew's Ambulance Association.

    Miss. M. E. Baker—Director of Training, British Red Cross Society.

    Mrs. Dorothy D'Ardenne—Senior Nursing Officer, Esso.

    Dr. C. White—Chief Medical Officer, Cadbury Schweppes Ltd.

    Dr. P. Elliott—Medical Director, Harlow Industrial Health Service.

    Mrs. J. Reynolds—Assistant Director (Training), Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.

    Mr. J. Tye—Director General, British Safety Council.

    Mr. P. S. London—Consultant Surgeon, Birmingham Accident Hospital.

    Representatives of the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and ambulance services have yet to be nominated.

    No remuneration is provided by HSE, apart from travelling and subsistence expenses not covered by a member's employer. Appointments are made to the sub-committee for a period of three years. The functions of the sub-committee are:
    to consider and advise on application from organisations and individual employers seeking approval for their training and qualifications in first aid or occupational first aid;
    to review training being carried out by organisations and individual employers whose training and qualifications have been approved;
    to advise on standards in regard to the qualifications of first aiders, occupational first aiders and lay first aid instructors.

    At a later stage the sub-committee might consider and advise on developments in first aid equipment and training syllabi.

    Machinery and Material (Weight Markings)
    Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation requiring all items of machinery or material used in employment and subject to being manually lifted, carried or moved to be marked with their gross weight.
    Mr. Waddington:
    This is one of the issues that the Health and Safety Commission will consider in the light of advice from its working party on manual handling. Once I have been informed of the commission's views, I shall consider whether it would be appropriate to introduce legislation requiring a load marking on all machinery, or material, for use at work.

    Load Handling
    Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Employment when the working party on the manual handling of loads established by the Health and Safety Commission is expected to report; and if he will publish the three reports so far circulated by the working party.
    Mr. Waddington:
    The working party on manual handling has not yet prepared or circulated any reports but expects to complete its work shortly and to report to the Health and Safety Commission before the end of the year.

    Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Employment why the Health and Safety Commission has decided not to go ahead with the proposal to recommend regulations on manual handling of loads; what consultations have been held on the matter; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Waddington:
    No decision has yet been taken not to introduce regulations on the manual handling of loads. The Health and Safety Commission has deferred consideration of this question until it has received the report of its working party on manual handling, which is expected shortly. If the Commission then concludes that regulations are necessary, these will be the subject of consultation in the normal way.

    Health and Safety Inspectors (Overseas Secondment)
    Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many Health and Safety inspectors are seconded abroad; under what terms; to which countries; for how long; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waddington:
    I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    Travel Aid Scheme
    Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to provide an enlarged travel aid scheme for those seeking employment.
    Mr. Peter Morrison:
    Travel assistance for unemployed job seekers is currently available under the job search scheme administered by the Manpower Services Commission. It is kept under review and its rules are amended from time to time to meet changing circumstances. Neither I nor the Commission has any plans at present to extend it.

    Health and Safety Inspectors
    Mr. Cryer asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many Health and Safety inspectors are currently employed; how many were employed in 1978, 1979 and 1980; and how many are expected to be in post in 1982.
    Mr. Waddington:
    The number of inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive at 1 July 1981 was 1,378. The numbers of inspectors employed in 1978, 1979 and 1980 were:

    1 April 1978

    1,390

    1 April 1979

    1,424

    1 April 1980

    1,444

    The number of inspectors expected to be employed at 1 April 1982 is about 1,380.

    Careers Staff (Wolverhampton)
    Mrs. RenéeM Short asked the Secretary of State for Employment why no special careers staff funded by his Department were allocated to Wolverhampton
    Mr. Peter Morrison [pursuant to his reply, 21 October 1981]: Under my Department's scheme to strengthen the local education authority careers service to help deal with high unemployment, 12 posts, each of which attracts an allowance for clerical support, are currently allocated to Wolverhampton. Three of these posts were allocated under the increase in the scheme provided nationally as from April this year.
    When a further increase was provided nationally from October, it was judged that on this occasion the limited additional help which could be made available should be allocated to other authorities. The Wolverhampton authority recognised the difficulties in deciding upon the recent allocation and requested that in the event of additional resources becoming available their needs would be considered again. We have, in fact, undertaken to review the position nationally for 1982–83 and this will, of course, include Wolverhampton.

    Unemployment Statistics
    Mr. Alton asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment among 16 to 20, 20 to 30, 30 to 40, 40 to 50 and 50 to 60-year-olds; how many people have been out of work for longer than one year, two years, three years, four years, five years, and more; and how many of the current year's school leavers have found jobs.
    Mr. Peter Morrison [pursuant to his reply, 22 October 1981]: At 8 October, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the Liverpool travel-to-work area was 89,583 and the unemployment rate was 18.8 per cent. Percentage rates of unemployment for specific age groups are not available below national level in the absence of employee estimates by age for local areas. An analysis by duration of unemployment is made quarterly and the latest at present available is for July. The analysis includes, but does not separately distinguish, those unemployed for four years or over. The following is the available information for the Liverpool travel-to-work area at 9 July.

    Duration in weeks

    Number unemployed

    Over 52 and up to 104 weeks

    15,771

    Over 104 and up to 156 weeks

    5,753

    Over 156 weeks

    10,329

    Information about the number of the current year's school leavers who have found jobs is not available.
    Sir Patrick Wall asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the total number of employed persons on 1 October in each of the past 15 years.
    Mr. Peter Morrison [pursuant to his reply, 22 October 1981]: Estimates of total employment are only available quarterly, relating to March, June, September and December. The following table gives seasonally adjusted estimates of the employed labour force for the United Kingdom for September from 1967 to 1980 and for June 1981: figures for September 1981 are not yet available.
    The employed labour force consists of employees in employment, the self-employed and Her Majesty's Forces.

    Thousands

    September 1967

    24,992

    September 1968

    24,833

    September 1969

    24,831

    September 1970

    24,712

    September 1971

    24,218

    September 1972

    24,499

    September 1973

    25,006

    September 1974

    25,142

    September 1975

    24,886

    September 1976

    24,764

    September 1977

    24,843

    September 1978

    24,992

    September 1979

    25,101

    September 1980

    24,384

    June 1981

    23,399