§ 2.41 p.m.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government on what grounds the "30 year rule" is held to apply to the official history of the negotiations leading to the United Kingdom entering the European Community written by Sir Con O'Neill on a special contractual basis for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and whether they will seek the agreement of the Prime Minister at that time to the publication of that history,
138§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)My Lords, the term "official history" is misleading in this context. This document was a confidential report to the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and as such it is a Departmental record to which the 30-year rule normally applies. The present Government see no reason for proposing a change in normal practice in respect of this report.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, does the noble Lord not recollect that on the previous occasion when he answered a Question that I put down he then said that it was the custom for one Administration not to see the documents of the previous Administration? Does the noble Lord also recall that I said I thought that was a respectable doctrine which ought to be maintained? Can he explain how it comes about that the Heath Administration must have seen the papers covering the negotiations by the present Prime Minister? How does he square that fact? Furthermore, would he be good enough to refresh his memory, if he has not done so already, on the three previous exchanges—two in 1966, and one in 1969 —which made it perfectly clear that any Administration, in consultation with the Opposition, could publish, if it were thought necessary and in the public interest? Would he not agree—
§ Several Noble Lords: Order! Too long.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, would my noble friend agree that on this occasion it is of paramount importance, in sup-port of the doctrine, that we should have all the cards on the table, face up, and not merely those which are convenient to either one side or the other?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, it is not the view of Her Majesty's Government that the publication of this document outside the 30-year period would in any way assist in the proper examination by the people of the issues involved in the Referendum. As to the dictum which the noble Lord quite properly put forward, it is the position that a Government do not have access to papers prepared for a previous Govern- 139 ment. I have no knowledge of a proceeding concerning the Government headed by Mr. Heath to which my noble friend has referred; I have no knowledge as to what happened then.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, as Sir Con O'Neill wrote this report while still in official employment, is it not clear that it should be treated as all other Foreign Office confidential documents of that time are treated? Is is not also clear that it is not necessary to read such a detailed report to see what was achieved and to understand the great importance of the success of those negotiations to this country?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, this paper is exactly on a par with any other paper prepared at the request or command of a Minister to which a civil servant accedes. There is no difference at all. The point at issue is whether, if this paper were published out of turn, it would assist in any way. The view of Her Majesty's Government is that it would not. As to the second point raised by the noble Lord, I entirely agree.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, is my noble friend not aware that it is obvious that if the previous Administration, for what-ever purpose, authorised Sir Con O'Neill —not as part of his official duties but on a special contractual basis—to write this history, the papers must have subsequently come back to the Minister, and therefore they must clearly have had access to the detailed negotiations carried on by Mr. Wilson as Prime Minister up to 1970? If the report is so favourable, why should anyone want to hesitate about publishing it? I am supposed to be an anti-Marketeer, but I am all in favour, in one way or the other, of putting all the cards on the table, face upwards. I hope the Minister will accept that what is important to me is not whether we stay in or come out—
§ Several Noble Lords: Order!
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I agree it is extremely important that the British public should know all the facts. The question is whether this 140 would help in placing all the relevant facts before the public. I have no knowledge of whether the last Government had access to the papers of the Government previous to them, and I cannot answer the noble Lord on that point. He has made his point that he is in favour of the widest possible publication for the illumination of this question, as no doubt he has always been, especially during his own distinguished tenure of office as head of an equally confidential Department.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, would the Minister be good enough to bring this matter to the notice of the Prime Minister with a view to his having con-versations with Mr. Heath to see whether, on the basis of agreement, this document can be published? This document has been paid for by the public; why should they not have the chance of seeing it?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I have no doubt that the Prime Minister is an assiduous student of Hansard, especially when he knows that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, contributes to it.
§ Lord BARNBYMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree, with due respect to the noble questioner's long experience in Government service, that compliance with his request would be a very "dis-organising" matter for the public service as a whole?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, such a move would have far-reaching effects, not least on the con-fidentiality of negotiations between one Government and other Governments. This is an aspect about which we must be very careful when we decide whether to take the publication of any confiden-tial document of this kind out of turn.