Skip to main content

Written Answers

Volume 461: debated on Wednesday 27 March 1985

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Written Answers

Public Record Office: Report

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have received the report of the independent review of the Public Record Office building at Kew which was commissioned last year by the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of the Environment.

The report has now been received and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.Investigation of the building and its services, by independent consultants Messrs. Donald Smith, Seymour and Rooley, has been painstaking in detail and comprehensive in coverage. No major faults have been revealed in the building or its services; nor has the investigation revealed anything which would explain the outbreak of illness which led to the closure of the building last year. The report does, however, indicate a need for some improvements to achieve a more satisfactory environment for readers, staff and records.The consultants have proposed a number of measures, including modifications to the air-conditioning and humidifier systems. In particular, they recommend a completely new control and monitoring system to provide an improved and more effective control over environmental conditions within the building.The Government accept the general conclusions of this report and are taking steps to carry out the recommendations without delay.

Opposition Parties: Exchequer Assistance

asked Her Majesty's Government:How much the Exchequer contributes at present towards financing each Opposition party in each House of Parliament.

The present maximum annual amounts payable to assist Opposition parties in carrying out their parliamentary business were given in my Answer to the noble Lord's Starred Question on 26th February 1985 (Official Report, Vol 460, col. 837).In addition, the Opposition Leader, Chief Whip and two Assistant Whips in the House of Commons receive salaries currently totalling £77,684 annually, and the Opposition Leader and Chief Whip in the House of Lords receive salaries currently totalling £42,230 annually. A London supplement of £908 is also paid to each of the Opposition office-holders.The cost of other forms of assistance to Opposition parties, such as the provision of certain office staff and accommodation, and in sending out party whip notices, is not readily quantifiable.

British Telecom: Management

asked Her Majesty's Government:What is the extent of their responsibility, other than as a minority shareholder, for the day-to-day management of the business of British Telecom, such as the installation of telephone kiosks.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry
(Lord Lucas of Chilworth)

The management of British Telecom's business, in conformity with the requirements of the licence granted to it by the Secretary of State under the Telecommunications Act 1984, is a matter entirely for the company. The Government have made clear that they do not intend to use their rights as an ordinary shareholder to intervene in the commercial decisions of British Telecom.

Madagascar: Technical Co-Operation Programme

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will make a statement on the recent official visit of Lieutenant-Colonel Victor Ramahatra, Minister of Public Works of Madagascar, particularly in relation to any assistance for road projects.

Under our technical cooperation programme we have agreed to finance a study of labour-intensive methods of road maintenance and to provide help with a lorry maintenance programme. Progress on these projects was discussed with Lieutenant-Colonel Ramahatra.

Trident: Cost

asked Her Majesty's Government:What, at constant prices, were the first and latest estimated costs (including modifications) of Trident; what was the dollar content of each estimate; and what were the respective rates of conversion into sterling.

The cost of a Trident I Force was broadly assessed at around £4,500 million to £5,000 million at the time of the July 1980 public announcement. The dollar content was roughly estimated as being about 30 per cent. of the whole.The original estimated cost of the Trident II procurement programme was £7,520 million at September 1981 prices and at £1 to $1.78. The dollar content was $5,897 million. If this estimate was to be updated to 1984–85 prices and £1=$1.38—the price basis of the latest Trident estimate announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in January—it would amount to £10,008 million and the dollar content to $7,006 million. However, there have been a number of changes to the programme in the intervening period, including changes in the planned allocation of work between the United Kingdom and the United States, notably the decision to process missiles at King's Bay in the United States of America, at a saving in cost of some £700 million at current prices. The latest estimate of £9,285 million includes a dollar content of $5,717 million.

Peat Stripping: Islay

asked Her Majesty's Government:What letters or other inquiries have been received from the European Commission about the decision to approve peat stripping from Duich Moss (Islay) and if they will publish any response they have made to such inquiries.

Her Majesty's Government have received no letters or other inquiries from the European Commission on this subject.

Archive Services

asked Her Majesty's Government:What reply they sent to the letter of 8th December from the Historical Association about the need to ensure that a unified and full range of archive services is maintained at county and Greater London level after the Local Government Bill becomes law, by what other bodies a similar plea has been made since the White Paper

Streamlining the Cities was published, and whether they will now amend the Bill accordingly.

We have numerous representations from persons and bodies concerned about the future of archive services in Greater London and the metropolitan counties. I would refer the noble Lord to my reply of 27th February to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in which I said that arrangements had been made for the City Corporation to take over and run the Greater London Record Office on behalf of Londoners as a whole, subject to parliamentary approval for the Local Government Bill. In the metropolitan counties we look to the councils of the districts to make arrangements, through voluntary co-operation, for these much valued services. They will have the necessary powers. We are, however, ready to listen to the views of those with a particular interest and expertise in these matters and I am arranging for officials to meet the Historical Association to discuss their concern.