Russia Committee: Records (Hansard, 18 March 1985)

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)
My Lords, a number of the 1948 and 1949 papers of the Russia Committee fall within the terms of the general approval given by the Lord Chancellor in 1967 for the retention within Government departments of records relating to security and intelligence matters for longer than 30 years. The question of the release of records which interest the noble Lord was reviewed in 1982 and again in 1984 by two of my ministerial colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Both were unable to find grounds to vary the original decision to withhold these records.

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that not unexpected reply, may I ask her two very short supplementary questions? In the first place, is it not perhaps a little absurd not to allow the chairman of what was, after all, the first—and, I think, very successful—policy planning body of the Foreign Office, at any rate to refresh his memory of recommendations and conclusions of that body, more especially if he gave an assurance that he would never make any use of or refer in any way to these papers without the consent of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? However that may be, since, as I think I recall, there were normally representatives 322 of MI5 and MI6 on this committee, including, from time to time, I rather suspect, the notorious Soviet agent Mr. A. R. Philby himself, would it not be desirable for the Government to recommend searchers after truth, and historians generally, to have recourse to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow, where the documents would presumably be readily available?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, of course I note what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has said. As he will appreciate, access to papers retained under the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958 is permitted only to those who need to see them for official purposes. Perhaps I may say that over the past 18 months my department has done its best to be as helpful as possible to the noble Lord, and my Ministerial colleagues in the Foreign Office have held a very extensive correspondence with him. With regard to his second supplementary question, I think that he has answered it himself.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would make this clear. Is she saying that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, cannot now have access to papers of a committee of which he himself was chairman, even if he makes plain and gives an undertaking, as obviously he would, and as he could on Privy Council terms, that if the Foreign Office so decides, he will not impart any of the information he obtains?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is as I have already given it to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. It is a question of the law and what is allowed under the Public Records Act 1958.

§ Lord Thomas of Swynnerton
My Lords, bearing in mind that some papers in this series, including the terms of reference, are in the public domain, would it not be possible for the Government to consider a technique practised in the United States, where, when there are papers which would otherwise be available but which contain items or names which even now it would be considered undesirable to reveal, the Government can suppress those items and those names by means of blacking them out?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I note what my noble friend has to say on this matter. Of course what is right for the United States is not necessarily right for us. However, perhaps he would agree that it would be wrong to tamper with a historical record.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, did the noble Baroness say that there had already been an "eccentric" correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, on this subject, or did I mishear her?

Noble Lords
Extensive.

Lord Paget of Northampton
Oh, "extensive". I thought she said "eccentric"; it sounded much more realistic. When the noble Baroness replied she said the Government could not vary their position. Apparently she was then talking, as the Question indicated, about 323 general publication. It now emerges that what has been asked is that the noble Lord, who is an ex-ambassador, and the man who drew up this report, should be allowed to have a look at his own report. How in heaven's name does that affect this country's security? This has reduced the whole thing to a farce.

§ Lord Gladwyn
Hear, hear!

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, surely there should be a little revision here?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I do not think I have anything further to add to what I have already said to the House.

Lord Morris
My Lords, if the noble Lord in question had made his own notes at the time, this Question would not arise at all.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, one appreciates that the question is very complex, but can the noble Baroness say anything about the differences which appear to exist in the regulations affecting first, ex-Ministers; secondly, ex-ambassadors who wish to look at their own ambassadorial papers; and, thirdly, ex-ambassadors such as my right honourable and noble friend who want to look at their own old papers written before they became ambassadors? If the differences are as wide as I think they are, is it not verging on the absurd?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I cannot give the detailed information that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, seeks without notice; but the position with regard to the release of papers is of course as I have described it in two supplementary answers that I have given.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the proceedings of this Committee of which I, too, was a member would not have been reported to Moscow by Mr. Philby? This task would have been entrusted to Mr. Guy Burgess whose work was very closely associated.

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord. Lord Mayhew, can regard as a joke what may have happened with those two people in question.

§ Lord Diamond
My Lords, the House is obviously very concerned with what the noble Baroness is saying. I am a little concerned about her statement that she cannot refer to the answer in detail with regard to the difference between Ministers and senior diplomats. Will the noble Baroness accept from me, without bothering about the detail, that a Minister is fully entitled to look at his own papers at the time he was a Minister? Why then should there be this extraordinary difference between a Minister and a senior diplomat?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I did not say that I would not answer the question. I said that I could not answer a detailed question like that without notice. That is quite a different matter. I have described the position as it exists.

§ Lord Teviot
My Lords, as I have had the privilege of serving on the Lord Chancellor's advisory council on public records for nine years, would my noble friend confirm that the Act of 1958 relates to the 50-year rule while the 1967 Act relates to the 30-year rule? Is she aware that if the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred himself to the Master of the Rolls, the chairman of that committee, and asked for a review of the situation, he might fare slightly better? That is the rule of this country. It is the rule of the land. Equally, will my noble friend confirm what I think is the case—that no post-tzarist regime records are available in Moscow, which explains why, every January, Russians come here to see what we have opened up after 30 years?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, it would be unwise of me I think to comment on what may or may not be Russian practice. I can confirm that if the Lord Chancellor wishes for a further opinion about the retention of records by the department, he may arrange for the Secretary of the Cabinet to look into the matter and advise him.