HL Deb 19 February 1979 vol 398 cc1520-2

2.42 p.m.

Lord INGLEWOOD

My 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 they are satisfied that the rule allowing Cabinet papers to be made public after 30 years does not place any foreign nationals, whose names may appear as having worked in cooperation with this country at the end of the war, in danger of reprisals in their own country.

The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)

My Lords, the Public Records Acts provide for the prescription of a longer period of closure than 30 years for any particular class of records, and it would be normal to prescribe a longer period in any case of the kind mentioned in the Question.

Lord INGLEWOOD

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether he can confirm that as yet the Government have had no evidence that any person in the position such as I described in the Question has in fact suffered in his own country as a result of our making public our Cabinet papers?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance, but one must always be watchful for the interests of those whose continued existence, in the light of information that might be disclosed from the records, might not be agreeable to certain foreign Governments.

Lord FLETCHER

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that, at a time when the period was reduced from 50 to 30 years, the matter was fully considered by a number of committees and the Government were aware that the reduction to 30 years might expose British nationals as well as foreign nationals to some risk of criticism, but it was thought that the interests of public disclosure were such as to outweigh those disadvantages?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, my noble friend has analysed the issues very clearly, but to implement the decision is sometimes a little difficult.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, does not the risk arise, especially where foreigners are concerned, when the papers of Government Departments are published 30 years later, and when they are transferred to the Public Records Office after weeding? Can the noble and learned Lord give an assurance that this hazard will be taken fully into account during the weeding process, and particularly as the children and grandchildren of a foreign national might well have reprisals taken against them after a considerable period of time?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Lord that this consideration is very much borne in mind. I think we have an honourable record of not letting down our friends in matters of this kind; a record which I hope will be maintained.

Lord BALOGH

My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord not agree that the great danger is that the weeding might be too unscrupulous?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I do not know about the word "unscrupulous"; I am not sure that I can say that, but an inquiry has been set up with a distinguished membership to look into the operation and mechanism of the Public Records Acts. But I adhere to what I said previously. I do not think there have been any problems in the particular field of a foreign national whose activities here, if disclosed, might give him trouble, either personally or through his family. I do not think that has arisen and I am sure that the Departments will bear it in mind.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, while agreeing completely with what the noble and learned Lord said about our record, may I ask whether the matter does not arise now because it was comparatively recently that the 30-year period was introduced in place of the 50-year period?

The LORD CHANCELLOR?

Yes, my Lords; I think that is so and, if I may say so, I think it was most helpful for the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, to have tabled this Question, so that the minds of the Departments may be alerted to the need for precautions.