§ Q5. Mr. M. Footasked the Prime Minister whether he will set up an independent body to consider and advise upon the rules governing access to State records, particularly Foreign Office Archives and Cabinet Papers.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. This is a subject for which the Government of the day must remain fully responsible.
§ Mr. FootSince it is evident from recent practice that a special privilege in this respect is accorded to Conservative ex-Prime Ministers, does not the Prime Minister think that it is rather invidious for him to suggest that no change in the present arrangements is required?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Member has made a statement which is not wholly in accordance with the facts. This privilege, if it is a privilege, is that any Minister may refresh his memory by looking again at official papers which he saw when he was in office. That is quite separate from the general rule governing the publication of papers as a whole. Up 208 to now, at any rate, it has been the view that to publish them at an earlier date would make two difficulties: first, it would tend to destroy the collective responsibility of the Cabinet; secondly, it would have the great disadvantage of making public the advice given by officials to Ministers.
§ Mr. GaitskellWould not the Prime Minister agree that the present situation is rather unsatisfactory precisely because a distinction is drawn between the fifty-year rule for historians and former Ministers to whom it now seems to be legitimate to refer to almost anything which happened in any Cabinet before and during the war? Will he consider this matter again and consider whether it is really necessary to maintain the fifty-year rule in its strictest severity in one case and yet not apply it in the other?
§ The Prime MinisterI see the difficulty. I think the right hon. Gentleman realises that in a great war such as the last war a certain laxity comes into the practice for the period and perhaps for the period immediately before the war. Personally, I think that the practice is working reasonably well. On the question of Ministers' rights, it would not be unfair to say that they are writing their own accounts and are not posing as impartial historians of the day. The fifty-year rule was reached after a good deal of consideration. One might question whether the matter should be reopened, but I do not feel inclined to do that at the moment, and I do not think that there is any great demand for it.
§ Mr. FootThe Prime Minister said that there was something inaccurate in my original supplementary question. Is it not the case that both the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and Lord Avon, for example, have been given permission to publish much more detail of discussions at Cabinet meetings than has ever been accorded to other Ministers?
§ The Prime MinisterI have seen memoirs of that period from other Ministers which seemed to me to be just as detailed.
§ Dame Irene WardDoes not my right hon. Friend agree that this matter is complicated in view of the fact that the United States and many other countries publish their documents long before we do? Does not that leave us in a very 209 vulnerable position? We never seem to have a chance to publish our case. American documents have been published very recently regarding the Baltic States, and I should very much like to see our documents on the subject.
§ The Prime MinisterOf course, the American system does not enjoy or suffer from—I do not know which is the right term—the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility. It is a wholly different system. The President has the responsibility, not a Cabinet. Nor is there anything like the relations between the permanent civil service in that country and Ministers that we have developed in this country.
§ Mr. ShinwellWhy should anybody be afraid of disclosures about what has happened at Cabinet meetings? Is it not desirable that in a free demorcacy the public should be fully informed, apart from matters relating to security, on what has happened at Cabinet meetings as far back as we can go and in recent days?
§ The Prime MinisterThat opens up a new and fruitful line of thought which I should like to consider.