asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will give in respect of the year ended 31st March 1985 a list showing the names of consultants engaged by them, the nature of the consultancy assignment to each consultant and the amount paid or payable in respect of each assignment; and whether they will further state, for each of the years ended 31st March 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984 the total sums so expended.

This information is not gathered centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they are aware of the large number of complaints from British people over the non-delivery of registered letters and parcels to addressees in the Soviet Union; whether they accept that the Soviet authorities are confiscating items whose distribution in the Soviet Union is not prohibited under Soviet law, and are in violation of the 1979 Rio de Janeiro Universal Postal Convention; and if so, whether they will now raise this question with the Soviet authorities, making it clear that the Soviet Union would be acting improperly under the terms of the UPC; and whether they will look for ways through which compensation for any confiscated items can be obtained from enterprises owned by the Soviet Government.

We are aware of and understand the concern of those who have experienced difficulties with the delivery of mail to the Soviet Union. The Universal Postal Convention makes provision for the prohibition of the importation of articles whose importation and circulation is prohibited in the country of destination. The precise internal regulations under which Soviet customs or postal officials operate in confiscating items are not publicly available. But the Soviet notification to the UPU of prohibited articles is so widely drawn as to allow the Soviet authorities, in theory, to refuse entry or to confiscate items we would consider quite innocuous. We have made known our serious concern about their interception of mail to the Soviet authorities, most recently at the UPU Congress in July 1984 and during the Ottawa Human Rights Meeting in May 1985. We do not consider at this stage that it would be useful to seek compensation from the Soviet Union. But we shall continue to remind the Soviet authorities of their obligations under Basket III of the Helsinki Final Act and of what we regard as the unsatisfactory interpretation they give to the UPU Convention.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What proposals they have to safeguard ecological interests in Greater London and the metropolitan counties after the abolition of the GLC and the county authorities.

The Local Government Bill provides for the transfer to the borough and district councils of the GLC and MCCs' existing powers and duties, including consultation requirements, in relation to planning national parks and countryside matters. In addition DoE Circular 108/77 asked local authorities to take full account of natural conservation factors in formulating development plans and in other planning matters and pointed to the value of consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council. We intend to re-emphasise this advice in the memorandum to borough and district councils on the preparation of unitary development plans which we expect to publish in the autumn. Clause 88 of the Bill, which is based on the powers used by the GLC to collect ecological information and to undertake research into the natural environment, also provides for the borough and district councils to make schemes for London or county-wide research and information activities; and the co-ordinating committee to be established in each area will have a specific duty to consider and, where desirable, promote the making of such schemes. Where any successor authority wishes to retain existing specialist teams, the residuary bodies will be able to provide a temporary home until long-term arrangements can be worked out; they will have a specific duty to review existing services and canvass successor authorities' views to this end.