§ Q7. Mr. Thorpeasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that proceedings in the Cabinet are adequately protected from public disclosure; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to a supplementary question by him on this subject on 15th April.—[Vol. 781, c. 986–7.]
§ Mr. ThorpeMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will now give some authority and precedent for the suggestion which he made on that date; namely, that any matter that is secret in the Cabinet may be disclosed to the world at large if it be the wish of the Cabinet? Is he aware that on 4th April the most detailed report of what happened in Cabinet was given in various newspapers, all of which were substantially the same? Can the Prime Minister give us any authority for disclosing voting figures or the attitude of individual members in the history of Cabinet secrecy?
§ The Prime MinisterI take full responsibility for what the right hon. Gentleman has referred to. In my previous supplementary answer I said that where the Cabinet agrees to information being made available, then from that moment it is no longer regarded as an official secret. Without wearying the House for too long, I think that the history of Governments and Parliament would confirm, over a very long period of time, that there have been such disclosures in successive Governments. It is a matter for a Cabinet to decide whether, for example, a statement is made in one direction or another, or in a White Paper, or by Press briefing or in many other ways. Unauthorised leaks are a different matter, and this is a problem that has plagued all Governments in this country.
§ Mr. ThorpeAre we therefore to take it that it was the unanimous will of the Cabinet that the report went out that the Prime Minister was "skilful and resourceful and tough" in his approach and that the Home Secretary was "cocky" and suggested that there should be no disclosure and no further leaks? Do we take it that that was a matter of unanimous consent?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. That was a matter of Press construction, and I know the right hon. Gentleman's interest in all these matters. He was also wrong earlier in suggesting that there were other details given, apart from one statement which was given in full and made available. I take full responsibility for that. Other items of construction put upon it by the Press are not my responsibility.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesWhy should there be so much secrecy about these Cabinet meetings? Would it not be a step towards real democracy if the minutes of the Cabinet, and the points of view of its members, and whether they voted, were disclosed, so that we could have real democratic government and understand what is going on?
§ The Prime MinisterThat suggestion is one that would need a great deal of consideration before I could be ready to agree to it.
§ Mr. PagetCould the Prime Minister tell us whether the account in the Press, that before this proceeding took place, all the civil servants who usually attend were sent away, is correct? If this is true, how did the decision about publishing or not publishing come to be reported?
§ The Prime MinisterThere are abundant precedents for Cabinets meeting in whole or in part without civil servants being present. It is possible to take a decision, and even to record it, without civil servants being there to record it. After all, most Cabinets include a considerable number of literate persons.