CABINET PAPERS

  Mr George Cunningham asked the Prime Minister if she will publish in the Official Report the text of the current guidance on the availability to Ministers of one Administration of the papers of a previous Administration.

  The Prime Minister: The guidance to officials on the availability to Ministers of one Administration of the papers of a previous Administration is as follows:

"Access by Ministers to Documents of a Former Administration

  It is an established rule that after a General Election a new Administration does not have access to the papers of a previous Administration of a different political complexion. This rule applies especially to Cabinet papers.

  The general principle is clear. An incoming Minister should not have access to any minutes or documents written by a predecessor of a different Party other than those which were published or put in the public domain by that predecessor; nor should he be told—whether directly or by access to departmental papers which would tell him—exactly what his predecessor had said. Moreover, it may be equally important to withhold papers which show the advice given by officials to the previous Minister even though there may be no indication on them of his views.

  On the other hand, the national interest requires that there should be some continuity of policy. The arguments for continuity are stronger in certain fields than in others, Foreign policy is generally recognised as providing the classic example of a field in which continuity is important; but there are other fields in which some at least of the work of departments ought to continue on broadly the same lines as before. Under modern conditions it is not practicable for departments to make a completely fresh start with all their work.

  There is no neat formula which can be used to reconcile the general principle with the practical considerations which sometimes point in the opposite direction. Departments use their discretion in making the best reconciliation possible in each individual case. It is one thing to give an incoming Minister a general account of the basis of departmental policy in a particular field under the preceding Administration and another to allow him to examine the particular personal views of his predecessor on certain points. On personal matters such as these, especially when the political content is high, a department is expected to be very discreet about what outgoing Ministers have said or thought. On the other hand there may be no objection to showing an incoming Minister, eg a report which his predecessor saw but on which action remains to be taken, or documents which were made widely available outside Government. It may be possible to draw a distinction between documents recording the way in which decisions were reached and documents announcing these decisions. The guiding line must be to avoid embarrassment to previous Ministers.

  Nor can there be any standard action in those cases where departments feel that incoming Ministers have a need to know. Some papers, eg reports, may, if appropriate, be suitable for showing to new Ministers as they stand. In other cases, eg where the outgoing Minister was personally involved or expressed views on paper, the requirement can be met by preparing a summary of what was at issue and the action taken without showing incoming Ministers the actual documents which came before the previous Administration. In any instance (whether an individual case or not) where it is decided that papers of the previous Administration ought to be disclosed to a new Government, difficultly may be avoided if, as a matter of courtesy, the former Minister is consulted before this is done.

  It is questionable whether in this context a distinction can be drawn between departmental papers about policy matters and those about individual cases. Individual case work often has a substantial political (if not policy) content, and the possibility of embarrassment could be just as real if a Minister were able to learn about the personal views of his predecessor on the handling of an individual case as it would be in matters of another kind. And, in any event, it is not easy to practice to draw a hard and fast line between case work, and policy. Although, therefore, it is a fair generalisation that papers on case work are less likely to cause difficulty than papers on policy, departments should nevertheless bear in mind the main objective—to protect Ministers from the political embarrassment that would arise if their successors saw documents that it was not appropriate for them to see."

  Thank you for your letter of 15 December in which you restated the Treasury Sub-committee's request for a copy of the 1993 Boundaries Review prepared by Customs & Excise, Inland Revenue and Treasury officials. I apologise for missing your 7 January deadline but, as I explained during the hearing, it has been necesary to take advice on the conventions governing the release of such information.

  I would like to start by reviewing the various exchanges leading up to the present position. The starting point was the Sub-committee hearing on 3 November during which the Deputy Chairman of Customs & Excise, Timothy Walker, referred to the Boundaries Review in answering a question about work done by officials to assess the likely costs and benefits of merger. Mr Walker explained that the Boundaries Review had examined these issues and had reported to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kenneth Clarke. You asked Mr Walker whether it would be possible for the Sub-committee to see the report and Mr Walker explained that he would look at what might be provided but that the report itself was confidential advice to Ministers.

  Subsequently, the Department wrote to the Clerk providing the terms of reference for the review and explaining that Dame Valerie Strachan would be pleased to assist the Sub-committee by providing factual information during her oral evidence on 29 November. Dame Valerie gave the Sub-committee a general account of this work including factual material about some of the potential benefits but she did not reveal the advice given to Ministers. Nor did she reveal the "conclusions" of the Review as opposed to Ministers conclusions based on the review and other considerations. Indeed Dame Valerie explained that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer concluded that the Government's policy was to proceed through a Closer Working programme rather than a merger of the two departments. I think the Department has gone as far as it could in assisting the Sub-committee on this matter whilst at the same time respecting the conventions and the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  As I promised during the hearing, I have reviewed the decision not to release this document to the Sub-committee. I think the essential point is the category of the document, not the fact that it was prepared for Ministers of a previous Government. The Boundaries Review was advice to Ministers and, under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice, it would not normally be released to a Select Committee. I have therefore decided that it would not be appropriate for me to release the report of the Boundaries Review to the Sub-committee and that it will not be necessary to consult Kenneth Clarke as you have proposed.

  I am sorry to disappoint you and your colleagues on this matter.

13 January 2000