§ Mr. Michael Footasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's consideration concerning the relaxation of the fifty-year rule governing the release of Cabinet and other Government documents.
§ The Prime MinisterYes. After a very careful examination of the issues involved the Government propose that the "closed" period for public records should be reduced from 50 to 30 years. In reaching this conclusion they have, of course, had full regard to the recommendation of the Advisory Council on Public Records that the period should be reduced only to 40 years. On the other hand the Council also thought it right to indicate that they had found it difficult to decide between 40 years and 35 years; and they coupled their recommendation in favour of a reduction of the "closed" period to 40 years with a further recommendation that scholars undertaking research relating to matters falling within this period should be accorded more liberal access to official records, including Cabinet records. The Government have considered this second recommendation carefully. But they are562W satisfied that the administrative objections to it would be considerable and that it would involve a degree of selection and discrimination which could be invidious and embarrassing. They have therefore concluded that a clean-cut "closed" period is to be preferred; and they consider that a period of 30 years would be reasonable for this purpose.
I have ascertained that this proposal would be acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, while not dissenting from the Government's view that a specific "closed" period is preferable in principle to a more indefinite arrangement, has indicated that he is not satisfied that a reduction to 30 years would be justified, mainly on the ground that it might involve embarrassment to politicians and civil servants who are still alive and active in public life and that it might therefore inhibit the confidential nature of Ministerial discussions and the frankness of advice tendered by officials. It appears to the Government, however, that these risks are not significant.
Speaking for myself—and under our proposals the papers relating to the earlier stages of my own Ministerial career would begin to be opened in nine years time—if criticisms are to be made of me and of my conduct of affairs, I would rather be alive to answer them when they are made. And during all our consideration of this problem, it has not been seriously claimed that a civil servant in his 20's or 30's would be likely to be inhibited from giving frank advice by the prospect that it might be opened to public inspection 30 years later.
On balance, therefore, the Government consider that the advantages of a 30 year "closed" period, in terms of allowing both professional historians and responsible public opinion to form a more considered judgment of the management of public business, would outweigh the marginal dangers which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has in mind; and, since I should naturally wish to obtain his concurrence before submitting any recommendation to Her Majesty The Queen in respect of Cabinet records, I hope that he will be willing to reconsider his views.
563WThe Government have also considered whether other steps might be taken to further the purpose which the Advisory Council on Public Records had in mind. As a result they propose that the range of the Official Histories, which have hitherto been confined to the two Great Wars, should be extended to include selected periods or episodes of peacetime history, on the basis that, although works of this kind would not necessarily be suitable for publication before the expiry of the "closed" period, they would enable important periods in our history to be recorded in comprehensive and authoritative narratives, written while the official records could still be supplemented by reference to the personal recollections of the public men who were involved.
The Government also consider that there is scope for extending to other Oversea Departments the Foreign Office practice of publishing selected documents concerned with our external relations. I believe that both these subsidiary proposals, which would supplement the proposed reduction in the "closed" period, will be acceptable in principle to the Opposition Parties, who would, of course, be associated with their implementation; and further consultations will be required about the arrangements to be made for this purpose.
I should hope that, taken together, the measures which I have outlined would let some light and air into our public records without in any way weakening the conventions which regulate the conduct of public affairs in this country.