§ 3.17 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take about publication of the Crosiman diaries.
758§ The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)My Lords, it is apparent from the selection of excerpts which were published in the Sunday Times newspaper on Sunday, 26th January, and Sunday 2nd February, that the representatives of the newspaper have taken account of the views of the Secretary of the Cabinet, and indeed this was stated in the newspaper on 26th January. So long as that continues to be the position, there is no reason for any action to be taken concerning publication of the excerpts in the newspaper. Discussions are continuing between the Secretary of the Cabinet and the literary executors concerning the proposed publication of the book.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. While the shedding of more light on our system of Government is surely welcome, and so also are entertaining personal stories about it, may I ask whether the Government are satisfied that no passages are being published which breach the confidence of Cabinet proceedings or advice tendered by civil servants?
While recognising that this situation has arisen from the sad fact that Mr. Crossman is not alive to respond himself to requests invoking his Privy Councillor's Oath, may not revelations take place of the views expressed by certain individuals on sensitive subjects before collective decisions were taken, and may that not inhibit the frank, confidential discussions which are the basis of our system of collective responsibility? If the diaries are to continue to be published containing such passages will the latitude similarly be extended to others, including former civil servants, to publish their versions?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the principle of confidentiality is of course crucial to the proper conduct of Government, and that fact is appreciated by Her Majesty's Government. As I have said, as regards the publication that has so far appeared in the Sunday Times, the editor has taken account of the observations and representations of the Secretary of the Cabinet in regard to matters which might have infringed the principles to which the noble Lord has referred.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord 759 Chancellor whether there is something more than the legal and technical aspects to be considered? Have we not also to consider whether there is an element of disloyalty and a breach of confidentiality in disclosing conversations that took place at Cabinet meetings? May I also ask a further question?—and I declare my interest. Are we to understand, now that extracts have appeared in a Sunday newspaper and, as I understand it, the book may be published shortly, that those of us who are inhibited because of the 30 years' rule in connection with the Official Secrets Act will be allowed to indulge in revelations?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, it will entirely depend upon the nature of the indulgence and of the revelations, both as to the matter of taste and as to matters of public policy. As to the former the Government cannot intervene; as to the latter, as I have said, the disclosure of Cabinet proceedings and Cabinet minutes, of advice given in confidence by civil servants to the Government where it is expected that the confidence will in turn be respected, are matters which are unsuitable for publication in a period shorter than the 30 years permitted by the rule.
§ Lord BLYTONMy Lords, would the noble and learned Lord agree that it would be far better if Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament did not write their biographies, for the simple reason that they are only news if they kick the ball into their own goal?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, there is of course another view, that they render a service to history— and possibly, also, to their dependants!
§ Lord PANNELLMy Lords, is it not a fact that this situation is not novel? A great deal of latitude was obviously given to Sir Winston Churchill and the noble Earl, Lord Avon, but there was not that brouhaha at the time. Is my noble and learned friend aware that, with regard to all of us, there is the speech we are going to make, the speech we do make, and the speech that we polish up at the weekend and that we ought to have made, and that the diaries come into the third category?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am fascinated by the noble Lord's trinity of approaches to public speaking, but I note what he has said.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, would the noble and learned Lord not agree that, in the circumstances, it would be better either to abolish the 30 year rule or reduce the period in order to be fair to other persons concerned?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I respectfully agree that there must be consistency in this matter. There is no intention of permitting laxity to enter into this sphere. It is a difficult situation, where a former Minister is entitled to give his own account of his own steward-ship. But the maintenance of confidentiality in Cabinet discussions, in exchanges between Ministers and between Ministers and civil servants is vital. It is right that steps should be taken, if necessary with the force of law, to maintain these principles.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, is it not a fact that, so long as ex-Ministers write biographically, breaches of this undertaking and of this loyalty inevitably and constantly occur? Is not the only real solution to provide that when gentlemen take office they give an undertaking there and then not to write about it subsequently?