Official Histories

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest assessment of the process for preparing official histories.

[Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank (LD)]

My Lords, it is a little over two years ago, on 10 July 2013, that I last raised the future of the Government’s Official History Programme, and well over 100 new Peers have arrived at the House since then. In the circumstances, I think it is justified to pursue a matter I first raised in the House on 8 February 2008, and twice, briefly, in 2012. I am grateful to colleagues who have supported me before and I welcome those who, now or later, may share my thoughts.

The Cabinet Office leaflet of the Official History Programme reminds us of the background. The work on official histories began under the auspices of the Committee of Imperial Defence as long ago as 1908, with responsibility for,

“compiling the naval and military history of the nation”.

After 1945, responsibility was extended to cover wartime civil issues such as food and health. The first official history I read was Problems of Social Policy by R M —Richard—Titmuss, published in 1950. It is a seminal text on poverty and deprivation in wartime, by which the author made his distinguished name.

As the post-war period of official histories came to an end, the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, following discussions with the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Burke Trend, announced that the range of official histories would now include selected periods and episodes in our peacetime history. So official histories continued and in 1997 the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, decided to renew the project.

I should explain my particular involvement. At that time, in 1997, I was appointed by the Prime Minister, together with Lord Healey and Lord Howe, as one of the three privy counsellors to approve the authors of official histories. Beyond those very limited responsibilities, I became interested in the planning and overall management of official histories. I was puzzled by what appeared to be two different series of books: the Official Histories Programme, with which I was involved, and a similar series published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I enjoyed the official histories as they were eclectic, but there was no obvious logic in their character, sequence and timing, with some authors taking many years to complete their writing, or even dying on duty. I was very uneasy about the publication arrangements, including the marketing.

The then head of the Histories, Openness and Records Unit at the Cabinet Office, Tessa Stirling, was very helpful, as she had been to authors, but following further correspondence and discussion, I decided to seek a debate. That occurred in February 2008. The ministerial reply was bland, but as a consequence of the debate, within a year, a report on the official histories was commissioned which turned out to be positive and important. The report was written by Sir Joe Pilling, a retired civil servant who took evidence widely and quickly, concluding that,

“the overwhelming weight of evidence supported the continuation of the programme”.

To summarise, he said:

“I recommend that the official history programme should continue”.

He also made some suggestions on how to make the programme,

“better, stronger and more useful”.

Despite that, in August 2010, in a letter to the three privy counsellors, the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, said that since the current Official History Programme was coming to an end. He said:

“Given the current challenging economic climate, I am sure that there is likely to be a hiatus in commissioning titles”.

That is how it was; there was no further explanation and nothing further about how to implement the Pilling report.

That brings me to the debate on 10 July 2013. In the course of my remarks, I asked several questions. Who decided to make a hiatus? Was it a ministerial decision and, if so, by whom and when? If we are in a hiatus or, alternatively, considering a new Official History Programme, precisely what are the financial consequences? As for the “current challenging economic climate”, how was it measured and does it seem the same as in 2010? At what point would it be judged appropriate to end the hiatus? After all, the Government are telling us that we are in happier economic circumstances. The Minister’s reply was unsatisfactory. There was no answer to my question on who made the hiatus, and so I ask again today: who decided? My following question is therefore: who can restore the Official History Programme?

As for the finances, without incurring disproportionate expenses, it is not possible to determine the overall cost of the current series of official histories. Further, the last year for which published costs were available was 2006-07. In the absence of these figures, how could a responsible decision have been made?

Almost four years ago, my noble friend Lord McNally, speaking on behalf of the Government on official histories, said:

“It would be a tragedy if we were to allow them to wither on the vine”.—[Official Report, 17/2/12; col. 547.]

I hope that the Minister today will endorse that sentiment. As an initial step towards reviving the official histories, the Government could agree the Pilling report, arrange for the Cabinet Office to discuss this with other departments, work out the financial implications and review the present publishing contract arrangements. My Lords, why not?