§ The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
§ 107. Mr. LUARDTo ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement about the relaxation of the 50-year rule governing the opening to public inspection of Cabinet and other official documents.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. 107.
Yes, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party have now both informed me that they agree with the Government's proposal to reduce the closed period from 50 years to 30 years; and Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve the disclosure of Cabinet documents falling outside the 30-year period.
The legislation necessary to amend the Public Records Act, 1958, in order to give effect to the reduction of the closed period, will be introduced at a convenient opportunity.
The House will also recall that, on 9th March last, I announced that the Government would propose to extend the range of official histories to include selected periods or episodes of peacetime history and that the Foreign Office practice of publishing selected documents should be extended to other Departments, both proposals being subject to the condition that the Government of the day would require to obtain the assent of the other political parties before putting work in hand.
I am happy to be able to tell the House that, after consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party, the way is now clear for both of these proposals to be put into effect.
The mechanism for obtaining inter-party agreement on the matters or documents to be covered by these proposals is to be a standing group comprising one Privy Councillor from each of the parties concerned.
1707 I am sure that these new arrangements will give satisfaction to the House and, to repeat what I said on 9th March, will
let some light and air into our public records without in any way weakening the conventions which regulate the conduct of public affairs in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 563.]
§ Mr. LuardIs my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will give great satisfaction to many scholars and historians all over the country, not least in my constituency? Can he give an assurance that, to match this concession, there will be corresponding improvements in the facilities available at the Public Record Office, including, if necessary, the provision of extra staff so that the 20 years gained by this move will not be offset by a similar period spent in waiting about at the Public Record Office for the papers to be located and produced?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is in charge of these matters, has already made arrangements for the digestion period in respect of the release of documents up to 1922, which is now occurring, and I am quite satisfied that adequate arrangements will be made, if the House gives the necessary authority in the legislation, so that there will be adequate staff to handle this work.
§ Mr. HeathIs the Prime Minister aware that we welcome the fact that it has been possible to reach agreement about these proposals? Will he confirm that there is no change in procedure for the publication of selected Foreign Office documents—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Not in the least. It is set out in the statement, and agreement has been reached on it by all parties, that there is no change in the present arrangements for publishing selected Foreign Office documents.
As far as the other Departments are concerned, we welcome the Privy Councillors procedure which the right hon. Gentleman is setting up.
§ The Prime MinisterI thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for his co-operation in coming along with this proposal because, as the House knew from my previous statement, there 1708 were difficulties in reaching agreement. I certainly confirm that the ruling up to this time in relation to the Foreign Office will continue and I think that the Privy Council proposal will be a useful one.
§ Mr. Michael FootWould not the Prime Minister agree that the fixing of a 30-year limit means that we will still have to wait awhile to discover the truth not merely about Suez, but about Munich? Does not my right hon. Friend think that this is carrying political mercy to extravagant lengths?
§ The Prime MinisterI am sure that my hon. Friend, who has taken a great interest in this matter and has put down many Questions about it, will recognise the difficulties in coming down from a period of 50 years to 30 years. Many believe that it is a little unfair to those who started Cabinet work early in life, as I did myself, that they should have all their youthful indiscretions published. Personally, I would prefer to be alive to answer the criticisms. There are, however, difficulties, including difficulties about the families of those concerned. I think that what we are doing is right.
A great deal about Munich has been published in the official histories and in two years' time the 30-year rule will be operating. As to other issues, we had a good run over the ground yesterday.
§ Mr. DoughtyAs Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Public Records, I should like to thank the Prime Minister for following the recommendations of that Committee with regard to public records and to assure him that the Committee was grateful not to have to decide which particular political documents should be subject to a closed order.
§ The Prime MinisterI would like to thank the hon. and learned Member. We have gone beyond the advice which we have received, which was for a period of 40 years. We have decided to make it 30 years.