Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Jan 1986

Vol. 363 No. 2

National Archives Bill, 1985 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

The Taoiseach

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

The purpose of this Bill is to establish formal structures for the preservation of central Government records and to provide for access to such records when they are more than 30 years old. The Bill also provides for the establishment of a new body, the National Archives. This body will assume the functions at present discharged by the State Paper Office and Public Record Office and, in addition, will be given a wide range of functions appropriate to a modern archival institution.

The new institution will be headed by a Director who amongst other things will ensure the preservation, restoration, arrangement and description of archives in the custody of the National Archives and also will have the power to examine and acquire departmental records. In particular, he will be empowered to inspect the arrangements for the preservation of these records. The Director will, therefore, have the very positive duty to satisfy himself that Departments are taking proper steps to ensure that their records are adequately preserved. This is particularly important in relation to the proliferation of computer technology and the stringent environmental conditions which are required for storing data of this type. This will ensure that departmental records which will eventually become archives will be in the best condition possible when they are actually received by the National Archives. I should like to add that preliminary steps have already been initiated with a view to the recruitment of a Director of the National Archives.

The Bill will also establish a new National Archives Advisory Council. The council will advise the Taoiseach on all archival matters and will have a crucial role to play in the initial two years after the commencement of the Act during which most Government Departments will be encountering problems never encountered before in relation to the timely release of departmental records.

During the Seanad debates, which were very full and led to a number of useful amendments to the Bill, I felt that, in concentrating on specific technical aspects of the Bill, some of the important principles of it were not sufficiently emphasised and I would like to take this opportunity to outline those principles which are essential to the development of a coherent national archival policy and its implementation by the State.

The fundamental provision in the Bill is the obligation imposed on Departments of State, under section 7, to preserve their records. This is basic. Provided that records are preserved, freedom exists to make or change or modify policy on other issues such as transfer of records to the National Archives and access to such records by the public.

I should also like to mention to the House that last year, pending the enactment of the Bill, I instructed that no further records should be destroyed until the opportunity arose for the new Director to examine them because I believe that in the past, unfortunately, many records were lost through destruction without adequate care being exercised to ensure that material of potential historical value should be retained.

On the issues of the transfer of records to the National Archives and access by the public, I have deliberately created a bias in the Bill towards the release of records rather than their retention in Departments. Under the provisions of sections 8 and 10, all departmental records must be transferred to the National Archives and made available for public inspection unless, under a rigorous and specific process prescribed in the Bill, specific grounds are shown to apply which would justify their retention.

Furthermore, I have decided that the power to certify records for retention should be exercised only by departmental officials and even then, every retention certificate under section 8 (4) must have the consent of an authorised officer of my Department.

The involvement of an officer of my Department, which already has some experience in the orderly release to the State Paper Office of records, will help to ensure that the criteria applied in different Departments will be uniform and that records will not be retained merely because of occasional over-caution on the part of individual departmental officials.

As a further safeguard, I have, in the course of the debate in the Seanad, included a general power in section 11 under which the Taoiseach can overrule any decision to retain records and direct their transfer to the National Archives to be made available there for public inspection. The power can be exercised only in a positive fashion — that is the power is directed only towards the release of records and cannot be exercised to direct the retention of records.

There are other detailed provisions in the Bill which we will examine on Committee but I am firmly of the view that the specific arrangements which I have just outlined are the key to the success of this Bill and to the establishment of a coherent national archival policy.

The Bill proposes the establishment of a 30 year rule for the release of departmental records and that corresponds with international practice generally. With the limited exception of Government minutes and associated files, we have not hitherto had arrangements for the general release of departmental records and historians have been largely denied access to this material. It is long past the time to remove the anomaly whereby historians can gain access to source material about Ireland from the archives of other countries while being denied access to our own records. That cannot be helpful to the preparation of objective historical studies of our past.

Deputies will be aware that this Bill has already had a quick and speedy passage through the Seanad although a number of useful amendments were made to it. I should like to express, unequivocally, my thanks to the Members of that House for their constructive contributions to the Bill. I wish to assure the House that steps have been taken to ensure the availability of accommodation for the National Archives. Premises in Rathmines are about to be renovated to provide suitable accommodation in the years ahead pending the construction of a purpose built building at Smithfield which the Office of Public Works are at present fitting into their forward planning. Space will be available in the Custom House for any material which may be transferred to the National Archives before the premises at Rathmines is fully renovated. Arrangements will also have to be made to ensure adequate staffing for the National Archives.

It is appropriate on this occasion to say that down through the years, from the very inception of the State, a number of significant Irish historians have participated in the wider field of Irish political life. I have in mind our deceased historians such as Alice Stopford Green, Dr. Richard Hayes, a close personal friend of our family, Professor Eoin MacNeill, a member of the first Government and — happily still alive — Dr. Edward McLysaght. In more recent times Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien and Dr. John A. Murphy have used their very individual historical insights to analyse contemporary problems and were never unwilling to face controversy. Likewise, the late Donal O'Sullivan, Clerk of the first Seanad, and Dr. Leon O Broin, who still flourishes, have drawn on their wealth of experience as senior administrators to produce major historical studies. I should like to refer particularly to Professor Emeritus Dudley Edwards who, before his retirement and when he was establishing the UCD archives and since, has never ceased to press me to have this legislation enacted. I have every confidence that the merits of this Bill will be self-evident to the House and those in the service of the State who will oversee its implementation in the years ahead.

Mr. Lenihan

We welcome this Bill as it is essential for several good reasons which have already been outlined by the Taoiseach. I have always felt that Irish historians have laboured under a very real disadvantage in regard to the anomaly which existed heretofore whereby historians could gain access to source material about Ireland from the archives of other countries while being denied access to our own records. In the field of Anglo-Irish relations this has resulted in some distorted comment and historical presentation. I will leave it at that because I do not want to get into a minefield. However, the balance needs to be redressed and the very fact that such information has been available from British sources to our historians, commentators and researchers has inevitably placed them under a disability which should not occur. It is very important that this Bill will enable the balance to be redressed, as I am certain it will, because there is no doubt about the capacity of Irish researchers and historians. It is just a question of having the balanced source material made available from Irish as well as other sources particularly in regard to the tangled area of Anglo-Irish relations. The need is paramount to get the whole arena of relations between Ireland and Britain into proper focus by having the Irish side of the case and the reasons behind decisions made known to historians for proper analysis and assessment.

The fundamental provision of the Bill is the obligation imposed on Departments of State under section 7 to preserve their records. This is fundamental, but the next step is equally important — the transfer of these records to the National Archives and to make them available to the public. The creation of the new central National Archives Advisory Council to advise the Taoiseach, who will have the ultimate co-ordinating authority in the whole matter, represents an excellent step forward. One of the real problems was that there was no central authority available to ensure that departmental records were preserved and transferred to some centre where they could be properly assessed and analysed.

I agree with another point of view expressed by the Taoiseach when he stated that over the years the real lack has been in the area of departmental records. Central records have been maintained but records in regard to Government decisions, minutes, agendas and so on are very simplistic in content——

The Taoiseach

Concise.

Mr. Lenihan

By tradition we have not given any detailed reasons for decisions within Government minutes and it is a matter which might be looked at in the future as we mature. I know the reasoning behind this in the early days of independence, but the British have abandoned this kind of reasoning and they have kept far more detailed minutes of Government meetings in Britain for the last 60 years or so. Our central Government reports in regard to Cabinet decisions are very bare and pared down to the minimum. It is the reasoning behind decisions based on submissions and information coming from various Ministers and Departments, especially from Ministers as they debate a particular point in Government, which is the real meat in regard to the process whereby decisions are eventually reached. There should be a greater explanation as to why decisions are made and what points of view were put by different Ministers when arriving at decisions. I know that is not germane to the Bill but it flows from its general thrust.

Up to now there has been very minimal recording of Government decisions and there is a wealth of information available within various Government Departments that has never been co-ordinated. The National Archives Advisory Council represents an ideal vehicle to bring these records together and have available a corpus of information for future researchers and historians. The obligations placed on Departments in the Bill are important in this respect. I know from my experience as Minister for Foreign Affairs that that Department has a wealth of such information which has never been properly recorded. I ventured into the area where the records were kept but I was not pleased because it was very clear that one would have to dig deeply to get minimum information from any source. I am sure this Department will be the target for the attention of the new Archives Advisory Council as will other Departments.

The Taoiseach

Did they show the Deputy the first file — S/1/22, my father's personal file consisting mainly of income tax demands?

Mr. Lenihan

Even that is worth keeping.

The Taoiseach

I am not so sure.

Mr. Kelly

Some other files might contain fossilised sandwiches.

Mr. Lenihan

Deputy Kelly should not be so cynical. I want to emphasise that if this Bill is implemented, obliging Government Departments to keep records and compile them in a co-ordinated way and if the necessary staff, facilities and space are made available to do the job, then this Bill is welcome. Perhaps the central records on Government decision-making might be expanded to include reasons why the Government came to such decisions. This would be of great help to future historians. I sometimes look back with regret on decisions which have been made and the reasons are unrecorded. Many Ministers over the years have made contributions to Government, but so far as future historians are concerned there is a blank page on the reasons why certain decisions were made. Now that we are no longer in the revolutionary era which gave rise to the need for these truncated minutes and into a more mature era we should be able to give wider and more expanded information on paper that would be available to future historians.

Mr. Kelly

Everyone in this House and in the historians' profession is glad that this Bill is at last here and I would like to join Deputy Lenihan in welcoming it.

This country suffers chronically from a lack of interest in recording things that ought to be recorded. In my own field of interest, the State's law, if we were to attempt to reconstruct the biography of the judges who sat in the Supreme Court in the twenties and thirties we would be very hard put to do it. People die, the oldest members of the Bar go, and names which were household words in the legal profession suddenly become mere names and nobody remembers anything about them except for vague recollections of somebody having told a second or thirdhand anecdote. The same applies to people who were prominent in political life in the early State.

Obviously, the party leaders and the people near the top of the parties are fairly well documented, but there are reasonably significant people, even at local level, whose biographies would be extremely difficult to establish. As a nation we are careless about these things. Naturally, we cannot do anything about — nor does this Bill purport to do anything about — biographical material but it sets out to do what is in the State's power, namely, to ensure the orderly preservation of official documents which are released to the public on fairly generous criteria within a reasonable time.

I have some points to make about the Bill which might be described as Committee Stage points, but my experience is that if one waits until Committee Stage to make a point one is less likely to have it heeded that if it is made on Second Stage when the Government will have a chance to decide if they will pay attention to what has been said and perhaps bring forward their own amendment in the meantime.

I would like to draw attention to the word "papers" in section 2 (2). This is in the long list of items which come under the phrase "departmental records". "Papers" is a word so general that it could be said to comprehend some of the individual items in the list which precedes it. I wonder if the Taoiseach might feel that the subsection would be better if he added a line or two in brackets after the word "papers" to make it clear that nothing on a Department's file, even the most informal scrap, is outside the intendment of that word.

I have occasionally seen very ancient State files, and their content varies between heads of a Bill, a draft Bill and the various stages of a Bill's preparation, but it also includes scraps of paper with notes on them, very often in a hand which is not now possible to identify, but which are full of interest. They are not formal presentations, formal documents or formal memoranda, but they are full of interest because they show the rivulets by which the stream of Government policy was formed. Although I know the Taoiseach would agree with this, I wonder if, in order to avoid doubt in the future, he might think it worth extending the word "papers", to make it clear that everything on the file comes within the intendment of the word.

In section 4 (1) (k) which describes the functions of the Director of National Archives, I am very glad to see that one of his functions is the "publication of archives, finding aids and other material relating to archives in the custody of the National Archives." The publication of archives will, in my view, be a very important and interesting part of the National Archives' work. I am not suggesting a change in the wording of the subsection because I do not see anything wrong with it, but publication should be approached in an adventurous and commercial spirit. I imagine there are large tracts or categories of material in different Departments — Finance, Defence, Justice — which would make a fascinating book, booklet or series. In my opinion we have here one of the rare instances when the State is sitting on a saleable commodity. Instead of being ashamed of that, or trying to make sure that the saleable commodity remains unsold, or is sold for less than it costs to produce, I wonder whether the Director of archives will look around to see if there is a role for collaboration with private enterprise in the market-testing and selection of different categories of material which, with a certain amount of risk for the commercial enterprise but also with a commensurate opportunity for profit, could be made commercially available.

I have a very high regard for the quality of the publications which the Stationery Office and the Government Sales Office have maintained down the years. Many of their publications are models of what publications, particularly scholarly publications and those of general interest, should be. I do not know if on balance that branch of the public service makes or loses money, and I do not want to make a guess about it, but it is safe to say that if the private sector were let into this area on appropriate terms — in the sense that the State would get a royalty or reasonable remuneration — we would see an expansion in this sector, particularly in view of the availability of this archival material.

In section 5 and elsewhere in the Bill a function is attributed to the Taoiseach which he is told to exercise after consultation with somebody; in section 5 (3) it is a Minister, and sometimes it is merely the Director who is not even a member of his Government. When another Bill from the Taoiseach's Department was being debated here in 1950 and was being piloted through the House by Deputy John A. Costello, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. de Valera, disapproved the formula that would require a Taoiseach to consult anyone in his Government before doing something. This was not because Mr. de Valera considered that the Taoiseach should have an absolutely unfettered or unbrindled discretion and should be allowed to do what he liked, but because he felt it was unseemly in legislation to insert a phrase that even hinted at the possibility that the Taoiseach might take an initiative without having previously agreed it with people who are his daily associates. I think the point has a certain grace and if the Taoiseach wishes I can produce the exact reference for him quickly. So far as I can recall it was in the context of the Arts Bill, 1950, and I think the then Taoiseach, Deputy Costello, deferred to the point his opponent made.

In section 7 (4) there are instances where authorisation is provided for the destruction of State or public documents coming under the general heading of records. Naturally I can accept that the Department have a space problem — even newspaper offices have space problems and are now beginning to put their own old files on microfilm and sell off the originals. I know there is a problem and I do not advocate the wholesale retention of departmental files. However, there is a danger here, and I am sure professional historians would agree with me, that a judgment made in good faith in 1986 as to what is or is not interesting will turn out to be a lamentable misjudgment by 2086, let alone 2186. The criteria with regard to interest which seem to us evident may change by 180 degrees between now and the next generation, let alone four or five generations from now.

I must admit I would not find it easy to draft an appropriate subsection to express this point, but I wonder if the Taoiseach would consider whether, if a decision is made to destroy a complete category of records — for example, material dealing with applications under a long forgotten scheme which has been wound up and which does not seem to be of any great significance — there could be a provision for retaining a random set of specimens of the material, not going beyond 1 per cent of the material. That would be interesting. In the future there may be scholars interested not so much in the history of a scheme as in the governmental or administrative machinery involved. Even though the individual records and the personalities concerned may be of no interest, the type of document may tell future historians something, and it may give them a message that may not seem of value today. I think it a pity to destroy completely any category of records, even a category of bus tickets, without maintaining a random set of specimens. There are two or three parts of the Bill where the destruction of records is envisaged and what I have said now applies to them all.

The Taoiseach spoke about the eventual home of the National Archives. I am not up to date on the accommodation facilities or problems facing the State but generally I would have thought the State was lumbered with rather old accommodation, some of it old enough to be historically of interest in its own right. For example, the military personnel in Collins Barracks inhabit in one wing of the barracks, the oldest military barracks in the world still in use. At least one part of that barracks dates from the 1750s——

The Taoiseach

The date is 1707.

Mr. Kelly

That makes my point even stronger, and I am glad to accept that correction. I understand it is the oldest inhabited military barracks in the world. There will come a time when it will not be usable for those purposes, and when the State will be faced with the problem of whether to conserve it or pull it down. The city of Dublin in other respects is a grotesque disaster and is an absolute disgrace to the councillors who have had the cheek to represent it during the years. They do not mind wearing cocked hats and gowns and swanking around as the governing body of the city, but neither do they mind Dublin turning into an appalling eyesore, a European-sized eyesore. A general principle for the State should be to try to re-use old accommodation rather than to put up new accommodation. I do not know the plans of the Government with regard to Smithfield. It may be that there is accommodation there that deserves refurbishment in its own right but until the State has gone through its list of existing holdings and has decided if old accommodation could be refurbished and given a new lease of life, as in the case of the ground floor of Kilmainham the State should not put up new buildings.

Before any contracts are drawn up for a new building to house the National Archives I should like to see the situation with regard to the Genealogical Office and Dublin Castle considered and put right. I should like the State to carry out a review of all State-held property in this decaying and increasingly seedy capital. In that way we might be able to kill two birds with the one stone, namely, housing the National Archives adequately and with dignity, and saving some old public building.

I do not know what happens at the moment with regard to the files of the High Court of private litigation and I do not know what rules apply to their disposition. If the Taoiseach knows what happens to them I would be interested to hear about it.

In section 10 there seems to be a piece of slack draftsmanship. Subsection (5) of that section reads:

Archives which were formerly departmental records and which have not been available for public inspection for more than 30 years shall be reviewed by an officer of the Department of State concerned authorised for that purpose at least once in every subsequent period of five years with a view to deciding whether or not they should be available for public inspection and shall be dealt with accordingly.

Will this officer be the one to decide and, if not, who will make the decision? The expression "with a view to deciding" leaves the matter too open. It could be drafted better.

The last point I wish to make relates to section 18 which deals with the removal of archives. Essentially, it prohibits their removal except where such action is authorised. Special provision is made for material — which is something of a collectors' item — in respect of records of the Irish Land Commission transferred thereto under the Irish Church Act Amendment Act, 1881. I do not know what is the reason for that special treatment. It is right that there should be a prohibition on the unauthorised removal of archives and that such action should be made an offence; but to make that offence a summary one subject to a fine not exceeding £800 is not to do justice to the seriousness of the offence. I am not saying that the matter would be serious in every case, but there is the potential seriousness of any such offence. If, say, someone either for a politically corrupt or other motive disposed of a State document or for commercial reasons chose to steal one which could realise money elsewhere, that would be the basis for what I think ought to be an indictable offence. I regard £800 as peanuts by way of a maximum penalty. There has to be a modest maximum if summary trial is involved; but I am wondering whether a mere summary offence carrying a maximum fine similar to what one might be fined for poaching a dozen salmon, for instance, is adequate. If the offence can be punished more severely under some other legislation I should like to hear that. I am not saying that in every case the maximum penalty would not be severe enough. That would depend entirely on the circumstances of the case. It would be a matter for the DPP and for the courts; but in the type of very serious case that I have instanced there should be the option of prosecution on indictment and if necessary custodial sentence by way of punishment.

I wish the Taoiseach and his Department well in regard to this Bill. I trust it will fulfil the expectations which the historians' profession have voiced.

Mr. McEllistrim

I welcome the Bill. It is time we introduced a Bill of this kind if we are to ensure the storage of material that will be of much benefit to historians in 30 years' time. This is a non-contentious Bill and we are happy to support it. We wish the Government well in the establishment of the new facility.

I note that a director of the section will be appointed but I should like to hear who the Government intend appointing to the national advisory body. I suggest that in this regard they select people from all walks of life because that would make the body a much better one than if it were confined to certain groups.

In the past some records have been lost. That would not have happened if we had had the kind of facility we are talking of here. I know from my time as Minister of State in charge of the Office of Public Works that the records in that department are very valuable and should be stored. This is the oldest arm of government. Likewise, Land Commission records should be preserved for future generations. Most of us are not likely to be around 30 years from now but we must ensure that our important records will be available then to historians.

I am very pleased that the Bill is before us. During subsequent Stages we will have more to say in regard to it.

Mr. Carey

Like the other speakers, I welcome this very important piece of legislation. The degree to which it will be effective will depend mainly on the availability of staff and on the proper means for retaining public records. The Bill has been welcomed in the Seanad also.

The only point I wish to make relates to concern expressed by people who live away from Dublin where the main site for public records will be. Scholars throughout the country experience difficulty during the working week in gaining access to records. Obviously, they would wish those records to be available to them at weekends and perhaps during late opening hours. That is why I am wondering whether the National Archives Council would consider the possibility of making available records to scholars who would be coming from the country outside normal working hours.

I am happy that new ground is being broken by the introduction of this Bill. This is giving the necessary lead to other bodies such as local authorities to put their recording systems in order. Indeed, in Clare County Council there is a new filming system which will retain a full account of the transactions made by officers over many years. I believe that technical advances are to the advantage of this National Archives Council and I hope that full advantage will be taken of technology. The new council should examine the availability of Irish equipment. I welcome the Bill.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I will not delay the passage of this Bill beyond making a few observations. I am very concerned about the fire precautions for protecting our archives. I understand that the National Library, where many of our records are kept, is not a very safe place and could very easily be burned down. What are the precautions like in the State Paper Office and similar offices which will be housing the national archives? This is a very serious matter. If we are to appoint an advisory council and pass legislation concerning the timely release of these documents the Bill should ensure that the records are kept in a safe place free from terrorist attack, accidental burning or damage. I would ask the Minister to assure the House that steps will be taken to ensure the safety of our records, if this has not already been done.

There is reference in the Bill to the establishment of a 30-year rule for the release of departmental records. I welcome this provision and the bringing into line of our archive regulations with European regulations in general. In view of the fact that we have had some rather controversial exchanges in another State with regard to classified documents in recent times I would ask the Minister to outline to the House what is or is not a classified document. Is an exchange between Ministers a classified document? Is an exchange between secretaries of Departments a classified document? Is an exchange between a Minister and the secretary of a Department a classified document? What is the status of an exchange between a Minister and a Member of this House? What document can or cannot be released within this 30-year rule? What documents are covered by the Official Secrets Act and what information is or is not readily available to the public without getting into the morass of classified or secret documents which cannot be released within the stated 30-years period?

I would like to see not just all Cabinet papers made available under the 30-year rule but also all ministerial papers and any private papers held in Ministers' offices related to Ministers' duties. I hope the Minister responsible will follow up this Bill with a public information Bill, which I understand is being considered by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Legislation.

This is a very important Bill but there is little point in passing such information if we do not ensure that the rules are enforceable and that the papers are in such safe custody that they cannot be released earlier than the 30 years stated in the Bill, either by undesirable infiltration or damage by fire. It is timely to consider not just the deliberate destruction of documents but the possibility of accidental destruction. There is little point in passing this legislation if it is possible for documents to be acquired or interfered with by undesirable persons or accidentally destroyed. Practical steps must be taken to ensure that the records of the State are protected for posterity. I welcome the Bill and I hope the Minister will take those observations into account.

Mr. Prendergast

I wish to make a few observations on this Bill. I commend the purpose of the Bill in providing for the amalgamation of the Public Record Office and the State Paper Office to form a single administrative entity under the title "National Archives". I might ask the Minister to look beyond that to the situation which prevails around the country and see if it is possible to develop a national policy on the preservation of those parts of our archives which are worth retaining. In Limerick the Regional Development Organisation under the regional archivist, Dr. Chris O'Mahony, have done tremendous work during a few years. He is now dealing with records of some of the people who emigrated from Clare to Australia in the last century and has unearthed an absolute wealth of information. Other very important work has been done. While looking through a solicitor's office for old records and archives — Mr. David Fitzgerald's office in O'Connell Street in Limerick — he unearthed about two years ago a will belonging to a member of the Arthur family dating back to 1650. The Arthurs, be it remembered, provided 46 mayors over about five centuries to Limerick city, the oldest city in the country. I am glad to inject that point into the dispute between Dublin and Cork about which is the senior of the two. We sent four Danish bishops to Canterbury before Dublin or Armagh got themselves sorted out and we were the ecclesiastical and political capital for this country 1,000 years ago. The records show that.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Prendergast

The records go back to Lanfrance in the 11th century. I commend the Minister on his welcome refreshing insight into that aspect of our lives. We are at something of a disadvantage vis-à-vis Britain where they have an unbroken sequence of records preserved over 800 or 900 years. We do not have that and never had a very great consciousness of it as a people. Lately the importance of preserving records has become increasingly recognised. It is supremely important especially since people in such places as Australia and America etc., are seeking the origins of their ancestors. People of Irish extraction in Australia are anxious to establish their descent as being distinct from those who were sent to Australia from the prisons of Britain. People who were sent there from Ireland were for the most part political activists rather than criminals as was the case with those transported from England.

I am glad to say that my third cousins contacted me about five years ago about our mutual great, great grandfathers who had emigrated from Kilrush in County Clare, and who settled in Otago in New Zealand. After 150 years we managed to establish contact; we have established our family connections and are now in regular contact. That is the kind of thing that is going on in very many other situations.

What is badly needed is a proper national policy in this regard. I suppose we must get the scene right in Dublin at the beginning and work our way around the country. Unfortunately, much of the work being done around the country is being undertaken by enthusiasts. Enthusiasts are notoriously selfish in these matters, in an understandable sense, in that they hoard these things. They tend to think, "I will do what I wish with my own books." They are loath to share that kind of material with anybody else. In your county, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Tipperary, as I understand it, there are four different sets of records, all of which are valuable at present, but they will not be released to anybody else. The whole purpose of archives is to make more knowledge available. In the mid-west the RDO in Limerick were the first of their kind to appoint a regional archivist, Dr. Chris O'Mahony. I know there is one in Cork but I am talking in an RDO or regional context. I would urge the Minister and the Government to ascertain whether it is possible to appoint that kind of person in each region.

To bolster that argument I remember the centenary celebrations of the Fenian Rising in 1967 when Seán Lemass, the then Taoiseach commented on the celebrations taking place. He made a rather startling comment, I thought, at that time, saying that many of the records belonging to the old RIC stations were still in position, that their contents could not be disclosed to the public because there were informers or people giving information at that time — up to recently at any rate. Because we were a relatively static society, the descendants of those people remained in the areas where their great, great grandparents had lived in 1867 and the records could not be made public. Those records are lying around. I have seen some myself. I came across some about two years ago. They are housed in old RIC stations. There is a need for some central or regional control, a system to record and to preserve for posterity that exceedingly valuable information.

There is another wealth of social history locked up in the trade unions and their general offices. I speak as a former president of the Limerick Trades Council, in the Mechanics Institute, which was founded in the year 1810, half-way between the anti-combine laws introduced by the British Government in 1799 to 1824, where there is a wealth of information. In my trade, to which I served my time, and my people for generations before me, I know there are documents dating back two centuries which give magnificent insights into the social conditions that prevailed in the Ireland of those times. We had the foresight to hand those over to University College, Dublin, in College Green, to their archives, for retention.

I cannot commend the Minister sufficiently because I know his sympathies and affinities in this area. When we get the national situation cleared, as part of a follow-up to this Bill we should institute a national policy for archives, putting in competent, qualified, professional people in each region. Hopefully they would be given access to such material by the enthusiasts to whom I referred earlier. As a people we are indebted to the enthusiasts because we would have nothing had they not minded this material and carefully preserved it. We could appeal to these people to let the State and future generations have the benefit of their research, diligence and industry, when students and everybody in education would benefit. What is at present being done will provide cap and gowns for future generations.

I strongly commend the Bill.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I commend the Bill and I should like to encourage its speedy passage. I hope there will be sufficient staff and funding made available to render its provisions effective. Probably that constitutes the biggest problem being encountered at present, that when the Bill is passed there will not be accommodation, staff or funding available to render its provisions effective. We lag so far behind other countries we have an awful lot of leeway to make up. There are masses of material which have been could be made available but which may be left lying in various places. The legislation would have no effect had we not the staff to handle this material.

I think the Taoiseach said in the Seanad that there was accommodation available. I am not sure if he has since disclosed where that accommodation is. Perhaps he would tell us if some building has been located which would be suitable for this purpose. The Taoiseach should tell us what building he has in mind. Possibly Rathfarnham Castle would serve this purpose. I believe a suitable use is being sought for that building which I am sure would provide ample accommodation.

I might make a few points on the provisions of the Bill which possibly may be dealt with on Committee Stage. Some of its provisions carry restrictions which need to be teased out with regard to their necessity, for example, the authority given Ministers and Departments to prevent the Director gaining access to material or moving material from Departments. Such restrictions will have to be examined.

There were a number of amendments effected in the course of the Seanad debate. One restriction that could cover almost everything and was not altered was that on material which it is contended would be contrary to the public interest. That phrase could cover almost everything. Every individual could interpret something that in his view would be contrary to the public interest. It is too loose a phrase and covers too much material. Indeed, it involves too many personal decisions on what is contrary to the public interest. It is necessary to define precisely what is meant by the phrase "contrary to the public interest", or how contrary can it be to the public interest. The phrase warrants definition in order that it would cover only material which directly threatened or seriously damaged the public interest. The Minister would need to explain precisely what he meant so that it could not be interpreted to mean something which would not be of a serious nature, that it would have to be something of a serious nature before it could be declared to be against the public interest.

A Minister can say that the material is relevant to his Department and is still needed in the Department and therefore he will not hand it over to the director. That is perfectly logical, but in some cases the material might be over 30 years old but would still be in use in the Companies Registration Office etc. or even in other areas. For instance, the Department of Agriculture have been dealing with disease eradication Bills for the past 20 years and we can be quite sure they will be dealing with this matter for another ten. They can be over the 30 year limit and still need the material in the Department. It is all right to have such a provision in the Bill that, even though the material is over 30 years old, the Minister may feel it is still relevant in his Department and should be retained and not handed over. However, there is a danger that Ministers could use that provision for almost anything. If they are reluctant to hand over material they can say that it is still relevant and of use. Therefore, the Bill should provide that where that is the case, and the Minister is making the case that it is still in use in the Department and is not making the case that it is against the public interest, then the Director should still have access to it for copying, photographing, microfilming or whatever is necessary. It can still be retained in the Department but it is under the director's care and in the director's archives on the basis that he is leaving it in the Department for the use of the Department. That should be included in the Bill.

Generally speaking, there is a need for a freedom of information Act along with this Bill because we are very restricted in the area of freedom of information. Some of it can be got by parliamentary questions; a great deal of it cannot be got by parliamentary questions, particularly in the semi-State area where Ministers say they cannot take responsibility for the day to day affairs of semi-State bodies etc. Therefore, information in this area is not available to anyone, even to Deputies in this House. A freedom of information Act would be essential to allow for this and to allow for much more information to be obtained than is obtainable at present.

In that regard I feel that the restrictions in this Bill on material which is to be made available to the Director are considerable. Therefore, if the Bill is passed with those restrictions, I see no reason why a shorter period should not be available for some of the material. In other words, material should be classified. Some material could be made available freely after four or five years, or certainly ten years, if it is no longer of interest or use. We could have a classification of materials that would be available after ten years, 20 years, or a maximum of 30 years. A great deal more information could be made available as quickly as possible to historians, social historians, writers, journalists or groups interested in, for instance, local history. Material could be made available to them if it is not still needed, is not contrary to the public interest or is not barred by the Minister for reasons that are even personal, and a Minister can do that. Material that embarrasses nobody, is no problem to anybody but could be very useful to different groups of society should be classified so that we could say, for example, that this is suitable for release after ten years, that after 20 years and the other after 30 years. I hope on Committee Stage to have amendments to the Bill on these lines.

I hope that the Minister will urge the Minister for the Public Service and the Minister for Finance to ensure that the disgraceful position in which we are in in relation to our staff and archivists will be corrected. It is an absolute disgrace that we have about one-third of the numbers that Northern Ireland have in total staff with possibly three times the amount of material to deal with. I hope that the Minister will not be backward in pressing the Minister for the Public Service for adequate staff, accommodation and so on.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Nealon)

I thank very much Members of the House on both sides for the unqualified welcome given to this Bill and the great enthusiasm with which it has been received here. A Cheann Comhairle, you will accept that this is a welcome oasis in the ordinary necessary cut and thrust of political matters across the House. Let me say that everything said will be considered carefully because this Bill is not one of a party matter. All sides and all individuals in the House are trying to get the best possible Bill on the ground and to cover all possible contingencies that are brought up. In that respect the Seanad debate has proved very successful and important amendments have been introduced arising out of the contributions of Senators, and without a doubt it is a better Bill as a result of that. The same will apply to recommendations made in this House.

The overall purpose of the Bill is to institute arrangements for the proper management and disposition of a vast body of records generated by Government Departments. Now, generally speaking, departmental records, except for a limited amount of Cabinet material, are not available at the moment to scholars. The Bill marks a major fresh approach to the manner in which we treat our very valuable archival material and provides a current framework within which comprehensive and accountable arrangements can be made. Once it comes on stream it will generate a frenzy of very important work and a new insight into many of the areas which have been the subject of necessarily only sketchy and sometimes ill-informed comment because of the lack of records, and will throw a new light on many things that have been of interest over the past years.

The main purpose of the Bill is the preservation of records. A number of Deputies here mentioned the question of disposal of records. Not all records can or need to be kept, but their disposal must receive careful attention. It is important that the reasons for which records are selected for destruction and the procedures by which this is carried out are recorded properly and follow efficient, widely known processes. In this regard the Bill provides that no records can be destroyed unless the Director of the National Archives is satisfied that they have no archival value. Deputy Kelly made an interesting point about the possible retention of a random selection, so to speak, of some documents which are selected for destruction. This would be more a point for regulations because it involves specific detailed arrangements. However, there are some possibilities here that can be considered.

Concern has been expressed during this debate and in the Seanad that in operating the mechanisms of the Bill there might be an excessive degree of caution on the part of the civil servants charged with this responsibility. Civil servants traditionally are supposed to be of a conservative nature but, mind you, I have met many who would not exactly fall into that mould. Nevertheless that is a general opinion expressed as regards the body of civil servants. A specific provision was inserted in the Bill during the Seanad proceedings to enable the Taoiseach to overrule a decision made at official level to retain records on whatever grounds. That is not a provision by which he can order certain records to be retained, but one allowing him to overrule a decision on retention to direct that the records can be made available. This is a very valuable provision.

The specific grounds on which departmental records can be retained under the Bill have also been discussed by Deputy Mac Giolla and several other Deputies, including Deputy Gay Mitchell. I believe that the provision of section 8 (4) strikes a reasonable balance between the need to retain genuinely sensitive records and the desire to make as much material as possible available to the archives. The overall purpose and spirit behind this Bill is to make everything possible available.

The grounds for retention relating to the public interest would comprehend sensitive security and other records affecting, for example, relations with friendly Governments. The definition, for example, would not comprehend records which might give rise to party political embarrassment.

There is also the question of breach of statutory duty where certain records were required by law to be kept confidential. There is also the matter of a breach of good faith, which relates to material originally supplied in confidence or the release of which could cause distress or danger. Examples would be where private citizens' personal affairs, for instance, or matter relating to members of the security forces were concerned. Deputy Gay Mitchell had other points to make but these dealt more with current records which might at present be very sensitive but would not be sensitive in 30 years' time.

I think it was Deputy Mac Giolla who introduced the point about whether the time limit should be 30 years or should be on a phased basis for release of some material perhaps in five years, others in ten years, and so on. That would be extremely difficult to operate. Unless there is a reasonable period defined, it could inhibit public servants and Department officials in giving advice freely if there were a possibility that the material might be made public at an early date. We are dealing here with a 30 year period which is generally accepted by other countries much more active in the archival area in making their records available to scholars. This is internationally accepted for the release of these records. I would emphasise again that the overall purpose that was enthuasastically conceived by the Taoiseach, being an area in which he has a great personal interest, is to make as much material as possible available. I know of the difficulties mentioned by Deputy Mac Giolla and look forward to seeing the various amendments which he will be producing in this area.

As the Taoiseach indicated in opening, the basic provision is section 7 which requires the preservation of departmental records. When we have acted to ensure that no departmental records are needlessly destroyed, so we have the freedom to make whatever arrangements best suit from time to time for their release to the national archives and to the general public. It is very regrettable, as has been mentioned by many speakers here and in the Seanad, that such a very important area of public administration as the preservation and management of our public archives should have been neglected for so many years. Deputy Lenihan alluded to this fact. The process of neglect, which has been the responsibility of all Governments since the foundation of the State, is now being halted and reversed. With the acquisition of departmental records on the scale envisaged by the Bill, the National Archives will become a major State institution and this, in turn, will attract many more donations of privately held records and archives. That is what is beginning to happen again with the National Museum. When public attention is drawn to a particular collection in the case of the National Museum or to archives in this case that tends to attract further very valuable material.

Of course, we must have appropriate accommodation. As the Taoiseach explained, the intention is to have a purpose-built building in Smithfield.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Where, Minister?

Mr. Nealon

In Smithfield, Deputy Kelly mentioned earlier the possibility of using some of our existing buildings which might be suitably converted as headquarters for the archives and we have carried out an inspection of many buildings throughout the city with a possible view to use as permanent headquarters. I think it might be possible to get a very good headquarters for the National Archives and at the same time preserve a very valuable or beautiful building of architectural importance. Many such buildings were inspected including churches and all sorts of buildings, but the final thinking was that the best procedure would be to have a purpose-built building.

As Deputy Mitchell also mentioned, there is the importance of ensuring preservation from another aspect, that is that there is not a fire hazard and that the best preservation and conservation conditions attach to such a building. The wisest course is to have a purpose-built building. In the meantime arrangements have been made for an existing Office of Public Works building in Rathmines to be used and, pending the preparation of this building as temporary headquarters, accommodation is being made or will be made available in the Custom House. The two year "run-in" period available to us for the disgorging of the vast amount of archives will give us a little liberty in this area and I hope we shall be able to handle the situation.

As far as staffing is concerned, the Taoiseach during the Seanad debate gave an undertaking that there would be adequate staffing. I accept the constraints that are there at present, but every effort will be made in this respect.

Deputy Carey mentioned the very real difficulty which exists — as Deputy McEllistrim will know, living in a country area — of coming to Dublin to pursue archival studies whether as a hobby or on a profesional basis. People engaged in such studies find it extraordinarily difficult to get up to Dublin during the week. Consideration will be given to what Deputy Carey said about keeping the archives open during weekends to facilitate scholars. We must try to make such arrangements if at all possible. It is very important for people who are busy during the week and who are unable to do research during working hours. We must keep this in mind. The Taoiseach has acknowledged that we must provide adequate staff and this will be discussed with the new Director of the National Archives.

Deputy Lenihan referred to the manner in which Government proceedings are reported. He said that at the moment the minutes are very brief, and anyone reading those minutes will appreciate the truth of that. However, in many cases they are backed up by Government memoranda which give some of the thinking by various Cabinet members before decisions are taken. I agree it would be interesting to have a report of the arguments that go on around the Cabinet table. That is outside the scope of this Bill but I have no doubt it will receive consideration. In other countries they record more than the precise decisions of Governments.

Deputy Mitchell made a very important point in regard to preservation of archives. That will be a priority. Deputy Prendergast showed interest in the records, kept in the Public Record Office and the State Paper Office, which embody 30,000 names of people who went from here to Australia. I have an idea that these should be computerised. We might get some work done on that in connection with the bicentennial celebrations in Australia in 1988. Further material will be coming in in that respect and it should be of great interest to scholars.

This Bill will go a long way to awakening appreciation of our history. The facts cannot be altered, but public perception of them can be. The Bill is worth while from that point of view alone. I thank all the Deputies who contributed for their useful contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 28 January 1986.