§ 2.47 p.m.
§ Lord WIGGMy 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 whether in view of the publication of the White Paper entitled Referendum on United Kingdom Membership of the European Community (Cmnd. 5925) they will now publish the official history of the negotiations leading to Britain entering the European Community written by Sir Con O'Neill on a special contractual basis for the Foreign Office.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the Report was produced for a previous Government. I understand that it is a confidential document which it would be inappropriate to publish.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to explain to the House what can be inappropriate compared with the fact that the British public are now being asked to take a decision which is vital for their future? Should they not be allowed to take the decision, cards on the table, face up? It is imperative that they should know not only the result of the present renegotiations, but also the extent to which Mr. Heath sacrificed the interests of this country for Party political purposes.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is aware that the Government do not have access to the papers of the previous Government. On the question of making information impartially and fully available to the people, the Referendum White Paper (Cmnd. 5925) sets out under Chapter 4 the very fair and full details of the Government's proposals. What really matters is the final outcome of the accession negotiations, which are a matter of public record. Equally, the final result of the present renegotiation will be made a matter of public record.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, is the noble 1087 Lord aware that the attack upon Mr. Edward Heath by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is very much resented on this side of the House and has not the smallest relation whatever to truth?
§ Several Noble Lords: Order!
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that nobody is making an attack on Mr. Edward Heath? If anyone is making criticism of Mr. Heath they are members of the Opposition who have imputed all kinds of base motives—
§ Several Noble Lords: Order! Order!
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, would my noble friend give way? I think he should not follow the example of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in seeking to turn a Question Time into a form of debate. I would hope therefore that my noble friend would put what he has to say in the form of a question.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, makes a statement which is inaccurate and which is a criticism of a noble Lord on this side of the House, we should be permitted to respond by asking a question too? That is all I was proposing to do. The question I was about to ask when I was interrupted—as it seems to me quite unnecessarily—was whether my noble friend was aware that there had been no criticism of Mr. Heath and that, so far as I am concerned, I would deny anybody the right to criticise Mr. Heath unjustly? To ask a question about the original Question, can my noble friend say whether the official Report was undertaken by Sir Con O'Neill when he was an official of the Foreign Office or when he left the Foreign Office, and what is meant by a "contractual" contract? Does that mean that he was paid when be had left the Foreign Office?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, addressing myself to the latter part of my noble friend's question, on 24th January, 1972, the News Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office announced that Sir Con O'Neill, 1088 the leader of the official negotiating team, would be giving up his departmental duties at the end of that month. They added that the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary had asked Sir Con to write a personal account of the negotiations, for official purposes. The position, therefore, was that Sir Con was giving up his regular professional connection with the Foreign Office and was asked, quite properly, by the then Foreign Secretary to undertake this memorandum, which was exclusively meant for official purposes.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that his last statement invalidates his first Answer, because in his earlier Answer he was hiding behind the respectable dictum that no Administration should see the papers of a previous Administration? I am not asking for that: I am asking for the publication of a Report, paid for out of public funds, which the people of this country are entitled to see before they make up their minds. That is the point.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I do not quite see the dichotomy to which my noble friend refers. On the second point, it is not unusual for a Department to ask a former official to prepare a Report or a memorandum on this basis and for that Report to remain confidential to the Department in question.
§ Lord GLADWYNMy Lords, would the Government agree, in view of the insistence that has been laid on having cards on the table, to publish a short summary of the advice tendered to the Prime Minister on the subject of Europe by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, when he was employed at No. 10 Downing Street?
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, I am in favour of having all the cards on the table, not just some of them. Is not my noble friend aware that Mr. Mark Arnold-Foster has now researched the documents which led up to the outbreak of the war, and that it has been established beyond any shadow of doubt that the Foreign Office at the time gave thoroughly bad advice which was not known to the British public? Is my noble friend aware that once again we are being led by the noses up to a point where we are being asked to take a decision with only partial knowledge; and is 1089 the Foreign Office not seeking to hide the facts because it is highly inconvenient that they should become known?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, there is no question of hiding the facts. The noble Lord's contribution is not a question; it is an expression of opinion and, as such, would have been much better deployed in debate than at Question Time.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, do I understand from my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government refuse to publish this document or even to provide a summary? Do I understand it to be the position that the document is regarded with the utmost confidentiality? Surely there must be some reason for that? Can my noble friend offer any reason?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords I thought that I had made it clear that documents pertaining to a previous Government are not accessible to their successor Government, except in very exceptional circumstances. I have made it clear that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, there is no need or propriety in publishing this particular document.
§ Lord PANNELLMy Lords, is it proposed to ask Sir Con O'Neill on a contractual basis to write a recital of those events specially for the present Government?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSNot so far, my Lords.