HL Deb 11 May 1967 vol 282 cc1655-76

6.10 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. To conclude the Sittings, here is a tiny Bill in two clauses, and your Lordships will not, I know, want me to take longer than I need over its Second Reading. Its sole effect is to reduce from 50 years to 30 years the period for which public records, subject to certain exceptions, are closed to public inspection. This is a Bill which has a history behind it, and I am afraid I must remind your Lordships of that history.

Before 1958 transfers of departmental records selected for permanent preservation to the Public Record Office were dependent on arrangements made with individual Departments and on mutual convenience. Access was at the discretion of Departments, who were asked to open for public inspection down to whatever date they judged suitable, as nearly as possible without reserve, all records which they had transferred to the Public Record Office. By 1958 the majority of Departments allowed access up to 1902, but there were a number of variations from this practice. So there was nothing very systematic, and in a sense the whole question was on a rather amateur basis.

To some of us it may be surprising to be reminded that until 1916 no formal records of any Cabinet meetings were kept. It was only in 1916 that the Cabinet Secretariat was created. The Committee of Imperial Defence had come into existence in 1904, but none of its records were available to the public. In 1952 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Butler as he then was, appointed a Committee, of which Sir James Grigg was Chairman, a Committee on Departmental Records, and this Committee reported in July, 1954. The Committee recommended that Cabinet papers and departmental records should become available to the public 50 years after their creation.

In recommending this period for Cabinet papers, the Committee drew attention to the need to provide adequate safeguards against, first of all, the premature publication of confidential information which could handicap current administration, and secondly, the impairment of the convention of collective responsibility of the Government or the responsibility to Parliament of individual Ministers for their own Departments. In recommending the same period for departmental records the Committee had in mind what they described as "the quality of un-self-consciousness" which they thought would he impaired if an official knew that what he wrote would be made available for public inspection during his lifetime. The Committee also said that their general recommendations would sufficiently tax the resources of Departments without the added complication of different dates for the release of Cabinet documents and departmental records, and pointed out that their recommendation would result in a substantial increase in the amount of departmental records which would become available to the public.

The Public Records Act 1958, which the present Bill would amend, gave effect to the recommendations of the Grigg Committee, and Section 5 made provision for access to public records. Subsection (1) provides that records to which the public had not previously had access shall not be available for public inspection until they have been in existence for 50 years or such other period, either longer or shorter, as the Lord Chancellor may, with the approval, or at the request of the Minister or other person, if any, who appears to him to be primarily concerned, for the time being prescribes as respects any particular class of record". Subsection (2) of Section 5 provides that where records were obtained under conditions under which allowing their inspection by the public might constitute a breach of faith, such records would only be made available, even after 50 years, in special circumstances or under special conditions.

Subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Act provides that where records created at different dates are, for administrative purposes, kept together in one file, all records in that file shall be treated as if created on the date of the latest record in the file. Thus the release of records under Section 5 is governed by the date of the most recent record in the particular file. Section 5 therefore gave effect to the Grigg Committee's recommendation providing the general rule of release of records after 50 years and enabling the Lord Chancellor to prescribe shorter periods or longer periods for different classes of records.

Under the powers to shorten the 50-year period Lord Chancellors have released a considerable volume of records. The most striking example is when I made an order for the release on February 10, 1966, of all the First World War records up to December 31, 1922. But the War Diaries of the First World War had already been released in 1965, and in some other instances records relating to particular departmental activities have been made available earlier than 50 years, when it had been thought desirable that the information in them should be made publicly accessible. Sometimes they have been made available much earlier; for example, the papers relating to the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Halsbury on Decimal Currency were released after six months. More usually, however, if I make an order for a longer period than 50 years it is 100 years, and if I make it for a shorter period it is usually 5 years.

The Grigg Committee had also recognised that it would not be possible for all records to be released at 50 years. Their object was to ensure that all records which it is practicable to open to the public after 50 years are in fact available at that time". This has been the policy of successive Lord Chancellors when considering whether to prescribe periods longer than 50 years for any particular class of records. Those for which longer periods have been prescribed fall into the following categories: first, those containing information about individuals whose disclosure would cause distress or embarrassment to living persons or their immediate descendants (such as criminal or prison records, records of courts martial, records of suspected persons, and certain police records); secondly, those containing information obtained under a pledge of confidence, such as the census, and various individual returns used in publishing statistical compilations; thirdly, certain papers relating to Irish affairs; fourthly, certain exceptionally sensitive papers which affect the security of the State. In addition certain papers, the ownership of which is shared with "old" Commonwealth countries, cannot he released until all the Governments concerned have given their consent.

Classes of records which have been closed for periods longer than 50 years will, of course, remain closed for the period prescribed after the 30-year rule comes into force. Like all my noble and learned predecessors since the Act, I have the great advantage when an application is made to me to make an order as to a specific class of documents that the Act created an Advisory Council on Public Records, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, whom I am very glad to see here this afternoon, is Chairman, and that Advisory Council has always been the greatest possible help to Lord Chancellors in discharging their duties under this Act.

I come to the reasons why this Bill proposes to reduce the 50-year period. Although the effect of the Public Records Act 1958 had been to release a great quantity of records for public inspection, there was soon growing criticism of the 50-year rule. The study of recent history had attained full academic recognition and was attracting much interest from the universities and in the world at large. Many scholars of standing and repute were said to feel seriously hindered by the 50-year rule and to consider that the whole field of scholarship had suffered as a result.

It was also suggested that as a result partial and biased accounts of our affairs gained currency, in which the British case went by default and British historians were handicapped in correcting them. These criticisms went too wide to be capable of cure by the exercise of the Lord Chancellor's power to prescribe periods shorter than 50 years for the release of classes of documents or by the exercise of the power under Section 5(4) of the Act, which I have not yet mentioned, under which the Keeper of the Public Records is enabled to allow inspection of closed records by a particular person when authorised to do so by the department concerned. The lack of sufficient flexibility of departments in authorising the Keeper to allow inspection under this subsection was also a subject of complaint.

In 1964 the 50-year rule was considered by the Advisory Council on Public Records. The functions of that Council as laid down in the Act are: to advise the Lord Chancellor on matters concerning public records in general and, in particular, on those aspects of the work of the Public Record Office which affect members of the public who make use of the facilities provided by the Public Record Office". The Council's Report (which is laid before Parliament) recommended unanimously that the closed period should be reduced to 40 years. They also recommended that scholars undertaking research within the closed period should be given more liberal access to official papers. A parallel recommendation was made by the Scottish Council on Public Records.

In amplification of their recommendation the Council attached to their Report a copy of a letter dated October 26, 1964, in which the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls, as Chairman of the Council, had informed me of their decision. That letter sets out the arguments for relaxing the 50-year rule to which I have already referred. It also mentions the argument in favour of a closed period which had been referred to by the Grigg Committee: that good administration requires that a suitable period should elapse before records are made available to the public, so that Ministers and officials should be absolutely free to express their views without fear of publication for a long time thereafter. The letter stated that all members of the Council considered 50 years too long; most thought 30 years too short. After fluctuating between 35 and 40 years they had unanimously recommended the latter.

In considering the proposal of the Advisory Council to reduce the 50-year period to 40 years it is useful to consider the position in other countries, although such information as is readily available concerns the records of diplomatic affairs only and is subject to qualifications in matters of detail. Perhaps the most important, from our point of view, is the position in the United States and Canada. The United States and Canada allow conditioned access after 30 and 35 years respectively, with facilities for the earlier release of special categories and for specially authorised inspection of closed records, somewhat on the British lines. The following allow free access, with similar "escape" clauses after 50 years: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Finland, New Zealand, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden and South Africa. In France various categories are "open" from different dates, which range from 1815 to 1914; in Italy searches of records later than 1870 have to be specially authorised. The same is true of Turkey for records after 1860, and of India for records after 1900. I do not know what the position is in Russia.

The 50-year rule is therefore by no means exceptional. But 50 years is admittedly an arbitrary figure, and another, lower, figure might equally be regarded as preserving the confidential nature of a Minister's relations with his colleagues and his senior advisers and as likely to preserve the quality of "unselfconsciousness" in official records. But in fixing a new figure it was necessary to consider at the same time the Council's other recommendation of more liberal access to closed records and the establishment of a body to advise on subject matter and vet applicants.

This raised rather more difficult issues. While on the one hand there is much force in Lord Acton's dictum: to keep one's archives barred against historians is tantamount to leaving one's history to one's enemies, the proposal raised the following difficulties. First, except for the established doctrine that former Ministers are entitled to have access, in order to refresh their memories, to Cabinet papers which they wrote or saw during their period of office, and that access to War Cabinet papers has also been permitted to the official historians of the two World Wars, it is a firm principle that access to Cabinet and Cabinet Committee papers still within the closed period is not given to any "outside" individual. Secondly, the Council's proposal would enable the Government to circumvent the recognised convention that one Administration does not have access to the policy records of its predecessors simply by authorising an historian to have access to them to write a book. Thirdly, the suggestion that a Committee of Historians should advise upon the professional standing of applicants for access to closed records would burden them with a most invidious jurisdiction which might well involve the task of adjudicating upon the merits of several candidates.

My Lords, the Government have gone some way to resolve this dilemma by proposing to extend the range of official histories, which have hitherto been confined to the two World Wars, to include selected periods or episodes of peacetime history, on the basis that although works of this kind would not necessarily be suitable for publication during the closed period, they would enable important periods in our history to be recorded, while official records could be supplemented by reference to the personal recollections of those actually involved in the episodes. They also propose to extend to other overseas departments the Foreign Office practice of publishing selected documents concerned with our external relations.

In these circumstances the Government consider that it is both safe and desirable to introduce a lower figure than that recommended by the Advisory Council, and have fixed 30 years as the period which they consider would be reasonable for a closed period for Public Records. This decision was announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on March 9 of last year. He pointed out that the Opposition Parties would of course be associated with its implementation and referred to the necessity of further consultations about the arrangements to he made for this purpose. On August 10 last year he was able to announce that the Leaders of both Opposition Parties had agreed to the Government's proposal and that Her Majesty the Queen had been graciously pleased to approve the disclosure of Cabinet documents falling outside the 30-year period. I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that the past practice of making any change of this kind only after full discussion with Opposition Parties is a right course to adopt.

In the Eighth Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Public Records which they have recently made to me, covering the year 1966, the Council say: We also welcome the Prime Minister's further statements of March 9 and August 10, 1966, concerning proposals to reduce the general statutory closed period for public records to 30 years: we hope that the necessary legislation will soon be introduced. We consider that the introduction of a 30-year rule should meet the legitimate requirements of most scholars; but we foresee that there will still he cases meriting special access either to records within the 30-year period or to records closed for a longer period under Section 5(4) of the Public Records Act 1958, and we hope that departments will continue to give sympathetic consideration to applications for such access. The Report will, of course, be laid before Parliament as soon as it is printed. The facilities provided by the Act of 1958 for granting special access to closed records will remain unchanged, and the proposals which I have mentioned are also designed to assist in attaining the objects the Council had in mind in the latter part of their statement.

The Bill makes a simple amendment to Section 5(1) of the Public Records Act reducing the 50-year rule to 30 years. It gives effect to the existing practice of the Public Record Office in providing that documents becoming 30 years old will be made available on January 1 next following that date. This is purely a question of what is practicable. It is clearly impracticable for the Public Record Office to release, each day of the year, records which have passed out of the closed period that day; and it has therefore been their practice to make this an annual event at the beginning of each calendar year. Clause 2(1) of the Bill brings it into force on January 1, 1968, to give the Public Record Office and Government Departments time to complete their administrative arrangements.

Although Section 3(4) of the Act of 1958 requires that Public Records selected for permanent preservation shall be transferred to the Public Record Office after 30 years, some Departments have been unable to meet this timetable which, as long as there was a 50-year rule, did not matter, but they have now had to take steps to ensure that these records are in the Public Record Office by the date the 30-year rule begins to operate, and every endeavour is being made to comply with the requirement. But there may at the outset be cases where some delay will occur.

It is also necessary for some Departments, especially the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office, to review their selection so as to ensure that records which had previously satisfied a 50-year test for sensitivity were not sensitive if released for public inspection after 30 years. There is clearly the possibility of records falling into one or other of the categories to which I have referred though they were thought not to be within these categories when considered in the context of a 50-year rule. It is not, however, the intention of the Government to countenance any evasion of the 30-year rule through the Lord Chancellor's exercise of his powers to prescribe a longer closed period. The same principles wilt apply to prescribing periods longer than 30 years as have applied for the prescription of periods longer than 50 years.

The sort of cases one has in mind—and they are only examples—are those of confidential correspondence with or about British firms that have been operating continuously in foreign countries, where disclosure of the correspondence might now have adverse repercussions on trade; comments by Ministers and officials on events and personnel abroad which could be exploited by hostile propagandists or otherwise used to embroil us with foreign rulers or statesmen whose public careers have spanned a 30-year period. With regard to the Government's proposals to extend the range of official histories to peace time, it has been agreed that the selection of topics and questions of publication shall be referred to an all-Party group of Privy Counsellors. It is intended to consider not only political topics but other topics of general interest, although free from acute Party controversy.

Here, then, my Lords, is this small Bill which is put before your Lordships' House with the approval of all Parties. I hope that these two little clauses will be found unlikely to give rise to a number of Committee points. The number of additional documents which are likely to become available on January 1 next year is something like 150,000 files. As your Lordships may know, the accommodation for readers at the Public Record Office is not as I should like it to be. But for our economic difficulties we had hoped to be able to start an additional building last summer. It has had to be postponed. However, arrangements will he made which I hope will provide places for a further 40 readers. I hope that they will enjoy themselves at that very interesting and very well-run place, the Public Record Office. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

6.36 p.m.

LORD DENNING

My Lords, I greatly welcome this Bill. If I have to leave before the end of the discussion I hope your Lordships will excuse me, but it is owing to a long-standing engagement. Historically, the Master of the Rolls is the Keeper or Master of the Rolls and Records of the Chancery of England. But now all this has gone. He is now Chairman of the Advisory Council on Public Records. The Council, as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor said, is engaged in considering these public records, and in the last three years, particularly, there has been an overwhelming demand by historians for a relaxation of what is called the 50-year rule. This is all due to the impact of modern history. We do not now go back so much into mediæval times, or even back 100 years. Researchers, scholars, and indeed the world at large, like to know the history, even of such events as the First Wold War and the beginnings of the last war.

Historians have complained greatly, not only because they are impaired in their own researches but because other countries open their records more freely and more recently, and therefore their historians get a good start. This has been the case whether it be the United States, with its 30-year rule, or, a good many people, even a 20-year rule. This applies to Commonwealth countries, such as India; and in Israel the records are open in regard to some of the controversial events of the last 20 to 30 years. Therefore there may exist partial accounts of the great events of history which may operate to the detriment of this country and, indeed, to the detriment of history generally.

In view of this great demand by historians, and bearing in mind all the considerations, the Council considered the question of restricting further. One has to place the importance of our administration of our affairs against the demands of historians. The reasons were all too cogent. Whether it be Ministers or civil servants, they must be able to write their memoranda, their minutes and their papers without the fear of their being disclosed too soon. Of course, the 50-year rule was laid down by the Grigg Committee on the basis that there would be statesmen— for instance, a man like Sir Winston Churchill—who could start writing important minutes at the age of 30, and that it would be undesirable for those to be brought up against them at the age of 80.

The 50-year rule was really applied for that contingency, so that Ministers should not be challenged afterwards in the course, for instance, of their working life. It is the same with civil servants, too, but it was thought that perhaps 50 years was rather too much for them. A 30-year span, however, might mean that a civil servant, who so often may influence policy, would find it very embarrassing to have documents brought up against him. At all events, the fundamental reason for the restriction is good administration, which must take the paramount ground; and historians, for all they say, must take second place. There is also this further reason. If the period is rendered too short, there is a danger that the most sensitive documents will not leave the Departments concerned and will not come to the Public Record Office to be seen.

So on the whole we recommended 40 years, but the Council themselves were delighted when the Prime Minister announced in another place, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has himself announced to-day, that the 30-year limit could safely be made. When the matter came before the Council they wholeheartedly welcomed it and felt that it satisfied the legitimate demands of historians and enabled this country and its historians to work comparably with other countries. That is the fundamental principle behind the change, subject always to the power of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—and it may be necessary to use it on occasions—to make an order fixing a longer period, as he does now in some cases. It may be necessary to make even more of those orders if there is sensitive material which may be harmful, as well as allowing the shorter periods about which we know.

We must also bear in mind the power for controlled access. One knows that sometimes, when statesmen retire and write their memoirs, they get special access to their own papers. There is still to be power to have controlled access when it can be given without harm to the interests of the State. But with those qualifications the Council, as I say, wholeheartedly welcomed this measure. As the noble and learned Lord has said, it means a great deal more work for the Public Record Office. They do not have enough accommodation at the moment, and they are doing all they can to cope with the greatly increased number of research workers, historians and others who are coming now that these new documents are being made available. This is a Bill which is to be warmly commended.

6.44 p.m.

LORD BRIDGES

My Lords, may I add my deep thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the full exposition he gave of the history of this very complicated matter? Needless to say, with most of what he said I am in the fullest agreement; in particular, with what he said about extending the range of official histories to selected periods of peace-time history. As one who was closely concerned with civil histories in the Second World War, this is something which is very near to my heart, and I am very glad to hear that that is going to be done.

I am concerned with only one thing. I speak as a former civil servant, and the official file is one of the tools of a civil servant's trade. I am speaking of the sort of files in which a civil servant has to put together the facts of some difficult and complicated question, to give advice to his superiors, whether civil servants or Ministers. He has to analyse the position and set out all the courses, and not cover up any uncomfortable facts. That is a job which has to be done fearlessly and frankly, and if it is going to be done as it ought to be done, the people concerned must have confidence that their advice will not be disclosed prematurely. That, of course, is the basis of the whole confidential relationship between civil servants and Ministers, and likewise between Ministers and the Cabinet.

How long a period is necessary for that confidence? Fifty years is/ obviously too long, and I entirely agree that forty years would be absolutely safe. I admit that if the closed period is going to be reduced to around thirty years I shall have certain misgivings as to whether that will give public servants the degree of confidence which they ought to have, so that they can put out the facts absolutely fearlessly, without any thought of their being disclosed prematurely. This question is, in a sense, rather subjective and it depends upon what one feels. It is not the sort of matter on which one can ask a computer for the right period. I am trying to see how I can bring this subject alive, so to speak.

I remember a quotation from my father's collection of the worst lines from the best authors. This was the first line of a German poem. I shall give it to your Lordships in English as I do not know German: Eternity, eternity— How long art thou, eternity? Of course, it is a very silly quotation and does not deserve an answer. But it does point to what the civil servant has in mind when he is setting out the facts on an uncomfortable, perhaps disagreeable, question as fully as he can. What he really wants to feel is that disclosure will be so long ahead that there is no harm in spilling all the beans.

I do not think I shall make any impression on your Lordships unless I try to give some instances of the field in which this applies. I should have thought it applied much more to our relations with other countries than to our internal affairs. I think that in 30 years we sort out most of our internal difficulties in this country to such an extent that disclosure would not be embarrassing. But I am not at all sure about the disclosure of the part played by particular people in dealing with or recommending courses to be pursued or negotiations to be undertaken with foreign countries. I am thinking of this primarily from the point of view of the national interest, but it could also have an effect on individuals.

A man between the ages of 25 and 30 might be serving in, shall we say, the Ruritanian Department of the Commonwealth Office or the Foreign Office. He might be appointed 30 years later as High Commissioner or Ambassador to Ruritania, and then people would ask what he knew about Ruritania. It would appear that he had served in the Ruritanian Department and people might rush off to the Record Office to see what they could find out about what that individual had said 30 years earlier. Your Lordships may think that that is a rather fanciful example, but there are certain particularly sensitive areas, more especially in our dealings with foreign countries, where a firm rule that you must always throw all the records open after 30 years would prove embarrassing.

I am afraid I did not follow all the details the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave about the practice of foreign countries, but I gather that there are a good many of them who do not throw all of their records open in anything like so short a period as this. I admit that I hope that the special powers enjoyed by the Lord Chancellor to prescribe not only shorter but, on occasions, longer periods will be considered for use in regard to certain specially sensitive areas, where it is found that longer periods are needed for the protection of public servants who are working in that field, and to give them the necessary confidence. I hope I am not wrong in putting forward the suggestion that that line should be considered and not ruled out of court as impossible.

If I may, I should like to make just one other point, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, also mentioned. What happens if the public servants in a Department or branch are not really confident that it would not be contrary to the public interest that the facts regarding some negotiation with which they were concerned should be disclosed at the end of the 30-year period? I think it is quite obvious what would happen. However strongly a man may feel, however anxious he is to do his duty, I do not think one can compel him to write out all his arguments and thoughts and put them on the file if he thinks it wrong that he should do so. If he takes this view, what will he do? He will do one of two things. He will either write a very short Minute and ask if he can speak to the Permanent Secretary or the Minister and explain his position more fully, or he will write a little note and say, "Perhaps you will read this but do not put it on the file".

In either of those events, two things will happen. Not only will the Department not have a proper record for its own use as to why particular decisions were reached, or the basis of the advice on which they were reached, but when the papers do go to the Record Office that particular paper will not be on the file and the historians will not be able to get it either when the papers go to the Record Office or at any subsequent date. That, I think, is a factor concerning human nature which I think it right to take into account, and perhaps I may add it as a subsidiary argument. I hope that this will lead to further consideration being given to prescribing a somewhat longer period than 30 years, at any rate, for the time being, in what I have described as certain very sensitive types and areas of work.

6.52 p.m.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

My Lords, I feel that I owe an apology to the House because I may be either saying things which are repetitive or using arguments which have been squashed in advance, as I have not really been able to follow things very closely. Basically, I should have liked to oppose this Bill. I regard it as damaging and possibly dangerous. It seems to me that people in high positions—not only Cabinet Ministers, who are the first people who come to mind, but many other people in high positions—are even to-day, as things are, tremendously obsessed (I am not blaming them; it is almost impossible to avoid this) with looking over their shoulder. In the good old days people did not bother about looking over their shoulder: they did what they thought was right. Of course, many people differed from them and thought they were wrong, but they were acting according to their consciences.

Nowadays, everyone is always thinking, "How is it going to be considered?"—and every time one reduces the period one makes this position much graver. Imagine a young man—say, an Under Secretary—hoping for a political career in which he might end up as, perhaps, Prime Minister or Lord Chancellor 30 or 40 years ahead. That is perfectly feasible. He will imagine, "I must be very careful what I say; this may be used against me." It is extremely important that people should feel that their confidences will remain, not for ever but for a very long period.

It seems to me that it is one of the curses of modern life that we are all watching our step—and the whole of the jargon that goes with that is bad. If one calls it democracy, it is the bad side of democracy. People want to do what they think is right, and what they think is right will constantly clash with what they will find if they look over their shoulder. For myself, I have got to a period in life when there is nothing over my shoulder to look at; therefore, I am able to speak with greater freedom. This, of course, is very desirable in itself—that people should be able to speak with that extra freedom. I should not in the least mind if the gap was a 100 years.

On the technical side, too, I am surprised at the Bill, because the Bill is saying, as the previous Act did, that there is power to alter it to anything you like, at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, upwards or downwards. That is an overall statement which covers this position as it covered the old one. I do not know what limitations there are on that; but it may be asked: "In that case, why are you bothering?". The reason why I am bothering, my Lords, is because it gives a lead to what the Government feel and what I quite accept many people on the Opposition side of the House also feel, and to my mind that lead is a bad lead. In a case of emergency there arc these ample powers. Incidentally, I think one thing that needs watching is the safeguarding of the position of the Crown, because the Crown is brought into issues and it might be exceedingly undesirable for there to be revelation after 30 years.

I well understand the entirely different position which arises over the official histories of the war. That is a series, and it is absolutely vital that the information should be collected at the earliest possible moment, before it is too late. when it may not be so readily available. But we do not treat that very seriously when you think that in the case of the First World War whole patches have been completely ignored by the Government. For instance, after 50 years, in the case of the East African Campaign we still stop almost in the middle of a sentence. Part II was never done. We have had nothing on the North Russian Campaign, nothing on the South Russian Campaign, nothing on the fighting in Afghanistan; nor have we had the second Dardenelles report, nor filled the gaps in the Mesopotamia report. All that has been left, and that is 50 years ago. I think that is a major case against, I was going to say the Government of the day, but I admit that it perfectly well applies to the previous Conservative Government. I think it is quite inexcusable. It was a war series, and it ought to have been treated in an entirely different way from the general question.

I know all this has been urged because researchers want it. That leaves me completely cold. Researchers have no business to want it, and to my mind they should not be encouraged to mix up history with contemporary research—and 30 years is contemporary. That is a very good definition of "contemporary"—30 years. The whole basis of history should be perspective and balance, and it should he absolutely dispassionate. To judge the events of 30 years ago, with all one's immature reactions to those events, and with all the prejudices of one's upbringing and background, is to he in absolute conflict with everything which can be called history. By all means let people write about things: that is always interesting. It is quite right that people who have been in public life should write about their experiences; but that is quite different from revealing public documents dealing with those matters. I am quite unmoved by the fact that a number of historians want to write about things, but these cannot make up the full story and therefore they must he misleading. It takes generations before all the facts are available, because all the facts are not those which emerge purely from Government documents.

There is a very big task for people during the 30, 40 or 50 years period, and for public servants in connection with, say, the Record Office. That task involves collecting the documents, seeing that they are recorded, filed, and put in their proper places so that everything is ready against the day when they can be released. During the 30, 40 or 50 years period they should be engaged in collecting all the authorities and seeing that when the time comes people will find that the maximum amount of information is available. At the present time, we are always absorbed with the question of foreground. Thinking of the foreground is quite the most dangerous basis on which judgment and statesmanship can be based. In the first place, the facts are not complete. They have not, like old wine, had time to mature. We want records to help us in our judgments. Those judgments are not going to be wisely formed on the basis of documents revealed after 30 years. It is to my mind a complete conflict with everything which stands for judgment from an historical angle.

My Lords, I hope I have not said anything which other people have said before me; but I feel it is very important that these points should be emphasised. I hope sincerely that there will be second thoughts and that this Bill will be dropped. If there are exceptional cases—and one can never make laws to cover everything—the previous Act already has powers to deal with them. I referred to one case, that of the Official History of the First World War. There may well he others that could arise. They can be dealt with in the way provided for by the earlier Act. But as a general lead as to what is desirable, I think that the provision in this Bill is dangerous and absolutely in conflict with all that we mean by statesmanship, and also from the point of view of being helpful to later generations in guiding them in the policies of their own day.

7.2 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, those of your Lordships who have stayed until now have been rewarded by a most interesting debate to which experts in their own spheres have contributed; they have certainly illuminated what seemed to be a very bare Bill in itself. I should like to join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in expressing the appreciation that we all feel for the comprehensive and fascinating manner in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us about the background to this Bill, and how he expected it would be operated if it were brought into effect. I need not detain your Lordships for long on this matter. May I say to the noble Earl, Lord Harrowby, that he certainly did not say exactly the same as was said by others; and I may add that what he did say was very worthy of attention.

It seems to me that the core of this matter is simply that the practice of keeping public records secret has one justification, and one only; that is, the public interest, and the effect on the conduct of our affairs, whether collectively or individually. It is that effect which has to be considered in conjunction with any proposal to alter the present practice. For my part, I was extremely glad to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who has such an important role to play in these matters, say so categorically that the fundamental consideration so far as the time limit was concerned must be good administration. I think his words were that good administration must constitute the paramount ground, and that the needs of historians must take second place. I think all who have spoken to-day would agree with that.

Both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, have expressed the thought that it may well be that, if your Lordships accept the proposals in this Bill and 30-years is substituted for 50-years as a general limit, it may fall to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack to make rather more exceptions than he has had to make in the past. I was not entirely clear from what was said by the noble and learned Lord whether this was what he himself anticipated would happen. But I am certain that in matters of this kind it can well be left to the noble and learned Lord (who has the benefit of the advice of the Advisory Council) to judge where the public interest lies and how the public interest can best be served. Where a longer period is necessary, he will make provision accordingly.

The noble and learned Lord said that he did not expect that there would be a great many points to be raised at the Committee stage on a Bill of this kind We shall have the opportunity of looking at the matter again between now and the Committee stage. My only comment would be that there are so many noble Lords who have played a part in public life that when they have read the debate in Hansard they may discover points that they may wish to raise on the Committee stage—although the only salient point is whether the period should be 30 years or 40 years, as the Advisory Council originally suggested.

But in view of the agreement between the Parties, and in view of the fact that the Advisory Council (though, in the first place, it recommended 40 years) has now acceded to the 30-year proposal in this Bill, I think it would be difficult for your Lordships to take a contrary view, although I feel a good many of the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I am sure that this will be borne in mind.

With these few remarks I would once again thank the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for his most interesting and comprehensive explanation of this matter. At a late hour, on the eve of going into Recess, I feel that we ought to express particular appreciation of his having done so, rather than to have treated this in a rather summary manner.

7.8 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am grateful for the reception given to this small Bill. It was a great advantage to the House to have the benefit of the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, with his experience as Chairman of the Advisory Council. The Advisory Council themselves hesitated between a period of 35 years and one of 40 years. Eventually they agreed on 40 years. It is therefore a comfort to me that the Council have unanimously approved the decision to reduce it to 30 years. The noble and learned Lord was too modest in saying that his only power now is as Chairman of the Advisory Council, because by Section 7(1) of the Act he is still responsible for the custody of the records of the Chancellory of England including the Patent Rolls.

The House will have been particularly glad to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, with his unrivalled experience, and we have all had very much in mind the considerations to which he has referred. It was only after the most anxious consideration and consultation with the Leaders of the other political Parties that this decision was made. The precise period must, of course, be a matter of opinion; but, as the noble Lord realises, this Bill makes no change at all in the powers of the Lord Chancellor to make orders prescribing longer or shorter periods. I am sure that if any Department or Ministry feels they have a specially sensitive class of papers they will apply to the Lord Chancellor to make an order in respect of that particular class of document.

I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Harrowby, does not really approve of the Bill at all. He took part in the debate on the 1958 Act and he is not, I think, in favour of any reduction at all. My Lords, these things are, of course, matters of opinion. The noble Earl does not think that researchers should be encouraged at all, but I would suggest for his further consideration that the country is placed sometimes in a rather difficult position. For example, American historians, and some of other countries who have access to their documents may write a history about a matter in which we were involved, and may so write that matters appear to have been to our detriment; and our historians cannot correct that because we do not allow our historians to have access to our documents.

I would also suggest this further point for his consideration. It is not only civil servants who, very naturally, want to be protected against too early disclosure of their documents. The same, naturally, applies to Ministers. But the decision to reduce the period from 50 to 30 years was, after all, taken by Ministers, and by the Ministers of this Government, only after consultation and agreement with the Leaders of other political Parties. Therefore, if Ministers feel that 30 years is supportable, one might feel that the most distinguished civil servants might be in the same position. After all, very few people are likely to be Cabinet Ministers, or Permanent Secretaries or Assistant Secretaries. I suppose, earlier than 35; and after 30 years they would be 65, and no longer occupying those respective positions.

My Lords, I am very much obliged for the consideration which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has given to the Bill. In answer to the point he made I feel sure that successive Lord Chancellors may be relied upon to do the right thing in relation to particular documents, or classes of documents, without, of course, using that power on such a scale as in effect to reverse the decision to produce the documents, in general, after 30 years instead of 50 years.

On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.