asked the Prime Minister when the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Public Records that some classes of records should be opened before a lapse of fifty years will be implemented.

The Committee on Departmental Records made no specific recommendation on the subject. All that it suggested was that the question might be examined when circumstances permitted. I understand that the Advisory Council on Public Records will shortly be reviewing the general operation of the 50-year rule; and it will no doubt take the Committee's suggestion into account in framing its advice to the Lord Chancellor.

When that examination is made, will the Prime Minister put it to the Committee that the present arrangement discriminates in favour of selective and partial accounts of retired politicians and against the objective and impartial efforts of some historians? Will he consider the whole question again, especially in view of the memoirs published in the last few months?

As I said in the House a short time ago, at this stage I am not prepared to alter the 50-year I rule. Only a comparatively short time ago the House agreed that this was the right procedure. On matters of detail the Lord Chancellor will be advised by the Committee.

In view of the fact that the 50-year rule as it now stands will; release documents published in 1914 but no later, will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of similarly exempting documents relating to the First World War and of carrying the exemption period down to 1920 or 1921?

I will consider that.

Mr. J. T. Price:

Although there may be a good deal in the technical argument about relaxing or modifying the 50-year rule for general records, how does it come about that retiring Prime Ministers can make vast fortunes from the publication of records which are not available to anybody else?

I understand the references which the hon. Member makes obliquely, but nevertheless my inclination, after recent experience, would be rather to tighten up the 50-year rule than to relax it.