Written Answers

Allied Forces Headquarters File 3837–141

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they can confirm that a number of British documents relating to the forcible repatriation of Russians and Cossacks during 1945–47, in particular the file known in the United States National Archives as Allied Forces Headquarters file 383.7–14.1, are not available to researchers in Washington only because of objections to such disclosure by Her Majesty's Government on the grounds of personal sensitivity; whether they can confirm that the original copy of this file was physically destroyed in 1968 or 1969; if this is correct, whether they can explain by what right or law a file containing personally sensitive material was destroyed; and whether they will now authorise the United States authorities to disclose to the public their copies of these documents and obtain from them duplicate copies, which can then be lodged in the Public Record Office in place of the destroyed originals for the benefit of the British public.

Our copy of Allied Forces Headquarters file 383.7–14.1 was destroyed in 1968 or 1969. Under the Public Records Acts documents are selected for permanent preservation only if they have some value for historical or research purposes; this applies irrespective of whether they contain personally sensitive information. In the case of AFHQ file 383.7–14.1, destruction had been authorised on the ground that it contributed information concerning only administrative details of the repatriation, together with lists of individuals. Since, however, the information regarding the identity of individual persons repatriated or considered for repatriation was personally sensitive, in response to earlier inquiries the United States Government were asked not to release their copy since the records in question were still covered by the 30-year rule.

The Criminal Law Act 1977, Section 48

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether any steps have yet been taken to draft the rules referred to in Section 48 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 ("power to make rules as to furnishing of information by prosecutor in criminal proceedings"); and if not, when it is anticipated that such steps will be taken.

The Government made clear during the passage of the Criminal Law Bill that implementation of this provision would depend on economic circumstances. But consultations are taking place about possible schemes for a greater degree of advance disclosure of the prosecution case in trials by magistrates' courts.

Hydrographer's Department, Royal Navy

asked Her Majesty's Government:In relation to the Hydrographer's Department of the Navy,—

(a) why are monies earned by the Department in the process of "paying particular attention to its commercial potential" as it is required to, not ploughed back into the Department;

(b) whether, in calculating the value to the United Kingdom of the Hydrographer's work for Iran in the Gulf at £11 million, any figure for costs has been allowed in respect of delays in any surveying required by—

(i) the Ministry of Defence, and

(ii) other Departments (e.g. of traffic lanes etc.) in British waters and whether such costs do not constitute a concealed subsidy;

(c) whether the Department is appropriately equipped with vessels and staff to "exploit its economic potential" to the full, and whether the FCO examines the potential market world-wide;

(d) what contribution the Department of Trade makes towards the costs of the Hydrographer's Department in view of its overall responsibilities for safety at sea;

(e) what proportion of designated shipping lanes off the British coast and of areas within which traffic schemes are in operation have been surveyed to the highest modern standards;

(f) whether they are considering the construction of a £3 billion gas-gathering pipeline network in the North Sea and, if so, what proportion of the area of the seabed in question has been surveyed, and when, and to what standard, and by what date will the Hydrographer's Department have completed surveys to modern standards of this whole area;

(g) what conclusions did they draw from the recent United Nations Hydrography Conference;

(h) whether surveying the British Continental Shelf to modern standards is viewed as part of the cost of the exploitation of the economic resources of the shelf, and if not why not;

(i) whether the Department is being expanded to meet the new demand, arising out of worldwide 200 n.m. EEZ declarations, for hydrographic services and training in hydrography, and if so to what extent;

(j) how many vessels does the Hydrographer now maintain over and above those required for the purposes of:

(i) the Ministry of Defence,

(ii) non-Defence purposes within United Kingdom jurisdiction,

(iii) current overseas contracts,

(iv) possible overseas contracts;

(k) what Minister is responsible for defining the Hydrographer's non-defence rôle, and for seeing that the Department is appropriately funded both as regards capital expenditures for new vessels and on-shore facilities and cash flow and that its potential exploited is to the full.

I will write to my noble friend.House adjourned at eleven minutes past nine o'clock.

Written Answers

Volume 389: debated on Wednesday 1 March 1978

Written Answers

Allied Forces Headquarters File 3837–141

The Criminal Law Act 1977, Section 48

Hydrographer's Department, Royal Navy