HC Deb 05 July 1955 vol 543 cc957-60

At the end of Questions—

Mr. H. Brooke

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now make a statement in answer to Question No. 55.

The Government propose to make changes in the arrangements for preserving the records of Government Departments in England and Wales, on the general lines proposed by the Committee which recently examined the subject under the chairmanship of Sir James Grigg. I have been asked to express the Government's warm thanks to the members of the Committee for a very useful report. Some of their detailed recommendations will require further examination, including that on the period after which various classes of records can be made available for public inspection. Meantime a start will be made with reorganising the Public Record Office and revising the arrangements in Departments for handling their records.

Several of the Committee's major recommendations will require legislation, and the Government will submit proposals to Parliament. One matter that requires legislation concerns the responsibility for the Public Record Office. In view of the very valuable services which have been rendered to the State by the present Master of the Rolls and his predecessors, the Government have felt considerable reluctance to make any change in the arrangement, dating from 1838, by which the Master of the Rolls is responsible for the Public Record Office. Nevertheless, and in view of the enormous increase during the present century in Departmental Records, the arguments in favour of the transfer of responsibility to a Minister of the Crown which are advanced by the Grigg Committee are of great weight.

The Master of the Rolls has been consulted, and as a result of these consultations, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has decided that the Bill which will be submitted to Parliament should include a provision for the transfer of responsibility for the Public Record Office to the Lord Chancellor. But, in accordance with the recommendations of the Grigg Report itself, the historic link between the office of the Master of the Rolls and the Public Record Office will not be severed.

Mr. Hyde

While thanking my right hon. Friend for his comprehensive answer, which will give satisfaction to historians and research workers generally, may I ask him whether all the Departments concerned have agreed to what is the main proposal in the Report, that save in exceptional circumstances all records considered worthy of preservation should be transferred to the Public Record Office after twenty-five years and that they should be open to public inspection after fifty years?

Mr. Brooke

No, Sir, I said there were certain matters which the Government had reserved for further consideration. The statement I have made today enables us to proceed with a chain of actions which will become necessary. The decision to which my hon. Friend has referred, about the date on which records should become available for public inspection, needs to be reached only towards the end of that change and need not be reached at the beginning.

Mr. Gaitskell

While not desiring to oppose the decision that a Minister should be responsible in future for the Public Record Office, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman which Minister will be answerable to the House of Commons in this matter, and could he give us some idea of when the Government are likely to reach a decision on the important point about the period which must elapse before public records will become available for inspection? That is the point in which most people are particularly interested.

Mr. Brooke

With regard to the first question, I would not like to give the right hon. Gentleman a definite answer at the moment. Normally, however, the Attorney-General answers in this House on matters which are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. As regards his second question, I could not yet give an indication as to when the Government may be able to announce their decision regarding the time when records will become available for public inspection.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

May I ask my right hon. Friend if he would not agree that the transfer of certain Scottish records from the English Record Office would materially assist that office, and are there not many documents which should be in Edinburgh that are still in London?

Mr. Rankin

Including the Stone.

Mr. Brooke

That is dangerous ground, on to which I would not like to venture in answer to a supplementary question.

Mr. Woodburn

Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that his statement applies only to Great Britain and the English Record Office and does not apply to the Scottish Record Office in Scotland?

Mr. Brooke

My statement applies to the Public Record Office and to the records of Government Departments in England and Wales.

Mr. S. Silverman

Since the Report refers to the records of Government Departments in England and Wales, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Pensions has used for many years in Nelson one of its most modern factories, which otherwise would have been available to offer for alternative light industry in the town, which greatly needs alternative light industry? May I, therefore, ask him whether this Report, and the Government statement today, mean that we may anticipate that the Government will be handing back that factory to us at an early date?

Mr. Brooke

I was really thinking of what was happening in London, and I would not like to forecast what may happen in Nelson as a result of this, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to table a Question.

Captain Orr

Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in order to reduce the bulk of the records which are kept, he will encourage the use of micro-film?

Mr. Brooke

That is a matter on which the Grigg Committee made certain comments, but it is not a solution of the problem.

Mr. Rankin

When the Government are in process of establishing this office, will they at the same time return to Scotland all records belonging to Scotland which are presently held in England?

Mr. Brooke

That question is on the same lines as the previous question, to which I replied that I would not venture on to that dangerous ground in reply to a supplementary question.