Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 May 1985

Vol. 108 No. 8

National Archives Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mrs. Bulbulia

I was in possession when the debate was adjourned on 13 March 1985. It is with pleasure that I resume speaking on this very significant piece of legislation. It is interesting to note that a previous speaker indicated that it is rather fitting that the Bill should come before the Seanad, dealing as it does with fossils and other ancient objects. Perhaps some of us might feel faintly fossilised but others are particularly keen and enthusiastic and not quite atrophied, and are ready to speak on matters connected with archives and their preservation.

If I may refer briefly to some of the points that I made when last speaking on it, naturally I welcomed the Bill. I think any civilized person with an awareness of history and its importance to all of our people would welcome a measure such as this. I would go so far as to say that I am genuinely enthusiastic and pleased that we are debating this legislation.

I welcome the Minister of State who attended the last time we debated this measure on 13 March. I am particularly pleased to think that we will have An Taoiseach with us because I know that he has a deep and abiding personal interest in this area and that he has been himself deeply concerned in the preparation of this Bill. It is my understanding that very wide and detailed consultations took place in the preparation of the Bill and that all those concerned in the area of history, archives and manuscripts were invited to comment and that their views were very carefully attended to and very many of them incorporated in the legislation.

If I may pause for a moment, it is particularly pleasing to see the Taoiseach here with us this afternoon and he is most welcome on behalf of all Senators. I have already spoken about his deep personal interest in and commitment to this whole area and for that reason I know he will enjoy this afternoon's debate and we look forward to his comments in the matter. He comes to this House all too infrequently; that is another reason why it is particularly nice to see him here this afternoon, hale and hearty on this occasion. The last time when he attempted to come he was stricken by a bug but he has been restored to full health.

I was talking about the wide and detailed consultations that have taken place in the preparation of this Bill and indeed all the various sections give evidence to the fact that these consultations took place. I think it is true to say that the making of adequate arrangements for the preservation of a country's archives is an inescapable duty of Government in any civilized society. We have tried over the past to do this but I feel that our measures are now very antiquated and dated and sufficient attention was not paid to this area in recent times. It is about 100 years since any previous such measure was looked at. It is a hallmark of our maturity as a nation that we should address ourselves to this whole area.

When I spoke previously, I traced the history of the Public Record Office and the various other measures that were invoked to preserve our archival material. Of course, we all know that the biggest disaster occurred to the preservation of our archives with the destruction that took place in the Public Record Office in 1922. I think we are still suffering from the after-effects of that event. Since then the Public Record Office in Dublin, as set up 100 years ago by the Public Records (Ireland) Act, 1867, has never got the same staff of professional archivists and the same budget as it had under British administration. That is something of which we should be ashamed.

It is important to state in the context of this new legislation that it is vital that resources be made available to the National Archives and indeed to the advisory council. I hope that this Bill will be something more than aspirational in character. I think it is not enough to be long on aspiration and short on effect and implementation and I look forward to hearing what the Taoiseach has to say in this area. Other speakers when we discussed the Bill in March, also expressed this anxiety and I know it is the concern of the professionals in the field that there should be adequate resources and staff and facilities available to back up this Bill. Although we are operating in straitened times and that there are constraints on finances, I am very interested to hear what proposals of a concrete nature will be made about this aspect of the Bill.

Staffing is of enormous importance and significance. We have many young, well motivated highly trained people who would be proud and pleased to work in this area of preservation. Not only will a great number of trained personnel be needed, but there should also be an upgrading of senior staff responsible for the archives so that they would have the standing and authority to deal with senior civil servants and Government Departments. One of the other Senators, when we last debated this, spoke about the grade of secretary as being the Civil Service grade which would be appropriate to the person who would be heading up this area.

Not only do we need the Bill, but also the back-up of a sufficient number of trained officers. It is interesting to note that the present number employed by the State is only half that in the Public Record Office in Northern Ireland. There has been co-operation between North and South in this area which is significant and important and something which I feel, in the context of this Bill, should be acknowledged. I hope that it will be an ongoing thing. We should not regard ourselves as poor relations in this area and we should have sufficient personnel and resources of our own.

I am interested in knowing what kind of funding this new body will be provided with, its level of staffing and the technological sophistication which will be used in filing and preserving the new records. Perhaps the popular conception of the storage of archive material is that of musty, decaying papers on cobwebby shelves. But we all know that the technological revolution has overtaken events and that in areas of microfilming and computer storage there must be a vast change in the way in which we approach the storage of our archival material.

It is important to state that the country and the State have obligations in relation to archives. It is in recognition of these obligations that this legislation is before us. It must ensure the selection and preservation of such records of Government as are likely to be of prominent interest. Of course, this is where the objectivity and training of a professional archivist comes into play. It is important that the State should make adequate arrangements for the safety of archival material in holdings under State control. We have had our disasters in the past and they have left gaps in our history. Indeed, many of our historians and researchers have been frustrated in their attempts to collate and assemble information to assist them in their research. The implementation of this Bill should make a great difference to the work of these people.

I feel also that the State has an obligation to make available to the public for research purposes material in these categories of public documents, subject of course to the consideration of sensitivity of certain records. This is taken care of in the Bill.

This legislation provides for a comprehensive and coherent policy for the preservation and release of the records of Government Departments and the principal offices of the State. It is a major and indeed a fundamental advance in the treatment of public archives in Ireland. Until now, only the records of Government meetings have been made available for examination and that, in most cases was after a time limit of 30 years. Many people would like to have access to these records within a shorter timescale and perhaps that is something that we can tease out on Committee Stage — that is outside the area of sensitivity where individual feelings or security reasons would make it inadvisable to see these things before the time limit of 30 years.

The new arrangement will also be governed by the 30 year rule. However, the period may be longer where public interest is concerned. The area where people might be subjected to distress or danger or where information was supplied in confidence, is something we should not forget about. When the Minister of State spoke it was heartening to hear from him that preliminary planning work on a purpose-built centre has already commenced and I look forward to hearing the Taoiseach perhaps elaborating a little further on this. In the meantime, we have been informed that interim space will be provided to accommodate the influx of records which will be accelerated by the enactment of this Bill. That is a far-seeing and a wise provision and I am very pleased indeed to see that it is there.

Harking back again to the great disaster of 1922, there may well be a case for storing materials on more than one site. This might be prudent and wise and would take care of any possible disaster situations. In fact, the division of records in 1922 between Dublin Castle and the Four Courts was a fortunate arrangement and it saved part of a priceless heritage. The specifications for any new purpose-built record office should pay the closest attention to the best practice and architectural development in this field. A central location also is something that would be desirable in order to give interested persons, scholars and researchers easy access to the materials which they require.

It is distressing to note that an appalling amount of departmental documents have been destroyed in the past. In 1941, for example, most of the records in the then Department of External Affairs were destroyed on the instructions of Mr. de Valera at the time because of the threat of a German invasion. I know it is easy to be wise after the event and to have hindsight, but of course it is a grave loss and one that, as I said before, frustrates our historians and researchers. Historians of that particular period are necessarily dependent on files in other countries because of the destruction of these Irish documents and it adds to the expense and the difficulty of collecting the material that they need. It is a great pity that this was done and there should never be a repetition of it. The bottom line in all of this area which we are discussing is preservation. Records destroyed are lost for ever. As long as records are preserved they remain available regardless of particular policies or the vagaries of individual Governments or people that may operate regarding their release from time to time.

I would like to refer to the area of ministerial responsibility. The Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924 gives the Taoiseach custody of and responsibility for all public archives. This gives a vital authority and independence in dealing with other Departments. Section 18 of this Bill enables the Taoiseach to make regulations for the management of the national archives. I am very pleased indeed that this central role which is so important is to be continued. It is consistent too, with bringing together the other art and culture functions under the Taoiseach's Department and it is consistent with the recent appointment of a Minister of State with special responsibility for Arts and Culture. Louis MacNeice wrote once that "Pride in your history is pride in living what your fathers died, is pride in taking your own pulse and counting in you someone else." This is a sort of feeling that underlies the present legislation and it is very apt, I feel, that I should give that quotation.

I am aware that local archives are not particularly covered under this Bill but since it is Second Stage and since we are talking about the general principles of preservation I would like to make some comments on the whole matter of local archives which are very important for the whole area of local history, local pride, local awareness in our roots and in what we are and where we come from. It is helping us to chart the course for where we are going. There is an increased danger today to all archives. It is partly due in a local sense to the decline of the great families. It is also partly due to the creation of certain new bodies, for example, the health boards and the decline and withering away of other boards and bodies. It is partly due to a reluctance of modern man to grapple with mounds of dusty papers and all that goes with examining archives.

In Waterford we are indebted to our county librarian, Donal Brady, who has done a great deal of work in the area of archives, largely in his spare time since it is not primarily his function; it happens to be his personal interest. We are pleased in Waterford that he is doing this and that he is collating so many important papers of our area. It points out the ad hoc nature of the public and statutory attitude towards local archives. It is largely left to the interest and concern and enthusiasm of individuals. Posterity may judge us harshly for not taking a commanding role in this area and providing resources and facilities.

As an indication of what has been done in Waterford county, largely spearheaded by Donal Brady the county librarian, I would advert to the Villiers Stuart papers which span over 700 years. These papers were indexed and organised by the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, which goes back to what I said before about their having increased resources and their willingness to cooperate and oblige us here in the South. They were filmed on behalf of and under the direct supervision of the Waterford County Library Services. Copies of the films were purchased by the National Library and also by the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, which is hardly surprising since they had such an input into their indexation.

Another interesting family in Waterford whose papers are beginning to be collated and indexed are the family who occupied Lismore Castle. The bulk of these papers are held in the National Library and the residue in Lismore Castle. I refer to the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire. The papers in the castle were organised with the help of Waterford County Library and by the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland again. Subsequently, the trustees of the castle decided to deposit the residue of the papers in the National Library. At the behest of our county librarian they made the deposit conditional on the provision of a microfilm of the entire papers to Waterford County Library, which was a wise and good step and ensured that the papers and the archives and concerns of an area are held in that area where, largely speaking, the majority of people who are interested in them will reside. It will make access easy. I hope that when this legislation is passed and we have our own archives council we will be able to see the fullest possible co-operation with enthusiastic people in local and regional areas.

In Waterford again, I refer to the papers of another of the great families of the area, that of Lord Waterford, the Marquis of Waterford. His is one of the oldest and perhaps most prestigious families in the area. The question of the whereabouts of this family's papers was raised with the National Library but they have no information regarding them and one presumes that they are still in the possession of the family.

We have many other areas of local archives connected with our major families in Waterford and they could all be collated and indexed as part of our local history. It is important to keep local government archives.

On a personal note, I would like to think, as the first women ever elected to Waterford County Council, that my great, great grandchildren in the years to come will be interested in having access to information as to what their ancestor, in her humble way, had contributed to this body in the years 1979 to 1985 and perhaps on other bodies also.

We should not overlook parochial records. We have a thriving industry in the visits of so many American tourists and also Australians, New Zealanders and other people of Irish descent who come to this country, very often with the specific purpose of looking up their roots and ancestors and establishing a basis for the family names and collections. It is important that we give due recognition to this and that we see as being significant the preservation of parish records in local communities. In our tourism promotion and advertising we should indicate that this whole area is one that we are happy to see attended to.

Business records are an important source of social history. The co-operative movement is one of the most significant happenings in recent years. Access to the historic documents which gave rise to the development of the co-operative movement should be available and should be preserved. Some of our great firms have a lot of source material which underpinned their existence. In years to come the material relating to this will be of interest. Solicitor's papers are important — not those perhaps directly involving the private affairs of individual citizens — and those involving land transfers and other important local happenings should, after a period of time, be made available.

That is all I want to say about the Bill. I hope I am forgiven for emphasising the significance and importance of local archives. Small is beautiful and often it is important to look at a major piece of legislation and see how it will impact on individuals in their own home areas and territories. Having got this legislation off the ground there will be a renewal of interest in archives and a resurgence of enthusiasm. It is with that hope that I conclude my remarks.

Mr. B. Ryan

Unlike my usual speeches I will be fairly brief in this case. I am venturing into territory that is well beyond my normal area but it is an immensely interesting and important area. The fact that it has taken us so long to get around to organising something which is so central to our history exposes one of the very interesting contradictions about ourselves. Probably among the countries of Europe we are most inclined to boast and talk about our achievements, history and longevity as a people, and yet at the same time we seem to be singularly disinterested in the physical records or manifestations of what we have done.

One gets the impression sometimes, when looking at the kind of conservatism that has begun to develop about our procedures in the Houses of Parliament, the structures of our society, the centralisation, the restrictions on access — as would have been the case until recently to the records of our Government Departments — and a number of other areas that, having achieved the spectacular change 60 years ago, when we became an independent nation, we somehow took fright at ourselves and decided that from then on we would be very careful and follow the example of our betters and have retreated from the revolutionary step which we took 60 years ago. This is a step backwards in at least getting us back into line with most of the west European opinion.

The sort of mystique, concern, caution and care that surround access to records and information is one of the very interesting concepts about the way public affairs are handled and about the way Government Departments handle their affairs. It is all very painful to hear people — the Taoiseach used the expression and he is not someone that I would accuse of being too hide bound by traditions — use words like "precedent". It has not been the practice and it is not in the public interest to disclose this, that or the other. I can think of things as simple as the report of the task force on unemployment in Cork as a classic example of something which it was not in the public interest to disclose. Some of the proposals of the report made to the Government were acted upon but the entire report was never published.

Before I go on to talk about the Bill I will refer to the whole idea of what is or is not in the public interest. We never leave it to the public to take an educated decision in many of these areas on what is in the public interest. We believe that the Government, or the advisers to the Government, know better than the public what is or is not in the public interest. Therefore, I am very suspicious or sceptical about words such as "precedent" and "public interest" and so on.

In terms of records, one of the issues that this Bill raises is the extraordinary diversity of records as they currently exist. We all have, as Senator Bulbulia mentioned, the image of records as musty documents. I suspect that within another generation the proportion of our records and what will actually exist in documentary form will be considerably smaller than the proportion that will exist in some non-documentary form such as in some form of electronic storage. In fact, the definition of records that is currently in this Bill is a good description of the range of the methods by which information can be collated at present. The reason why any discussion on access to records or, indeed, access to information, is usually so circumscribed by caveat and qualification is because we all recognise that access to information is a form of power. It may not be true about information that is 30 years old. It is quite definitely true about current information. As in a number of other areas, in the interests of what is broadly described as the public interest we have been guilty at the very least of protecting inefficiency in many cases and at the worst of cover-ups in some cases about the way Government Departments are handling their affairs.

We have a very fuddy-duddy attitude to all these things in connection with records and information, that somehow there is a screaming, angry public out there who, if they got their hands on all this current information would make the country virtually ungovernable. The experience of other countries in the area of access to information has been that when you give a guaranteed right to information most people are not affected by it. The people who are actually affected by it and use it are people who have a vital interest to be protected. I hope that following on from our decision to formalise access to records which are 30 years old that we will have a far more revolutionary proposal to guarantee freedom of information to current records where obvious matters like natural security and privacy are not threatened.

The Bill, as it stands, is most welcome. The release of documents, even documents which are 30 years old, has a certain purgative effect on the public service. It might even represent a penitential exercise. Even the awareness of the possibility of disclosure may well influence the way people couch their terminology and express themselves. I hope this should be the case. I am not entirely persuaded that there must be vast quantities of public records. A 30 year time limit is about 29 years too long. It remains to be seen but I do not believe that there are huge volumes of public documents which need 30 years before disclosure; 30 years is a good, cautious, conservative figure. There is a large volume of public records that could be disclosed now without any great threat to anybody's vital interests.

Whatever the merits of the Bill are— and there seems to be a welcome for the general principles involved, notwithstanding the volume of representation we have all got — I have a suspicion that there are going to be a succession of us standing up here repeating the same proposals that all of us have got from the same fairly well-qualified academic sources. There is an important issue of principle contained in a number of the comments that have been made to me, at least. They refer particularly to section 7 (4) and some parts of section 8. They refer to the ultimate decision of what will be transferred to the archives and the ultimate decision of whether it is appropriate to publish something which is still firmly retained within the structure of the body which created those records in the first place. That is not a good basis for sound objective decision-making.

It is not a good idea that the decision to disclose records from a Government Department should rest, however benignly we interpret the Bill, with an officer of that Department, however controlled or subject to advice he may be from an officer of the Department of the Taoiseach. While this Taoiseach may have a considerable and long established interest in the whole area of the preservation of our archives, there is no reason to believe that his successors will take a similar interest. It may, effectively, become by and large a decision by officialdom. Officialdom, for very good, understandable reasons, will be extremely cautious and conservative and that which cannot be harmlessly disclosed will not be disclosed at all. There has to be a considerable element of independence in the decisions about both the transfer of records and, in particular, about the question of the publishing of records. I am not at all convinced that the present wording will ensure that.

Section 7 (4), as everybody who has had representations on this issue knows, could lead to quite an enormous amount of indiscrimate administrative hoarding. None of us has a shortage of experience which suggests that large areas of the public service move extremely slowly and to suggest that things might be needed for administrarive purposes at some stage in the future and to leave that decision almost entirely in the hands of the offices of a Department seems to me to guarantee that a large amount of information will be required for long periods of time just in case at some future date it might be needed.

Then there are the quite necessary exclusions from publication of certain documents. The reasons which are given are, by and large, acceptable. I am sceptical about the public service definition of what is contrary to the public interest. The history of most countries in the development of large public services is that those things which are decided most vigorously not to be in the public interest are the ones, in fact, in which the public are most interested. To retain the right to decide fairly effectively within the public service is possibly to frustrate one of the objectives of the Bill.

I am interested also in the clear reference of non-publication of anything that would cause distress or danger to living persons. Nobody would dispute that. It is interesting that when it comes to things like social work records many local authorities, and particularly Dublin County Council, felt quite free to go and look for social work records when they were involved in litigation with members of the travelling community. Apparently, the fact that these were personal records which could cause great distress to individuals did not give them any preservation or a right to privacy. If we are going to be sensitive about the rights of individuals to be preserved from distress we should extend that right to a general right to privacy so that personal records cannot be scrutinised by third parties who might have an interest in their doings.

Therefore, if the Bill is to work as I think it is intended to work, an element of independent assessment of the question of what should be published and what should not be published, what should be transeferred to the archives and what should be retained, must be introduced. Whether that be by giving the director who, after all, is presumably as much a trusted public servant as the public servant from within the particular Department would be, or whether it should be given to an advisory council is something that could be discussed. To leave it entirely within the structure of the public service is to invite excessive caution and excessive conservatism and, indeed, a perpetuation of the present situation but with volumes of useless paper being transferred with anything, possibly, that might be of particular use to historians being retained for one or other of the reasons listed.

There is a presumption in this sort of retention of authority about a certain superiority in the public service to determine, first of all, what is the public interest and to determine also what is not the public interest. They are two separate things. It might well be that the public service might decide to publish things which could be offensive to people. It might well be that they would decide not to publish things which would not be offensive to people. There is a need for an independent professional scrutiny. The presumption that those within the public service have some pre-eminent right or pre-eminent capacity to make these judgments is to go beyond at least my very limited knowledge of the normal distribution of talents among the human race. An independent assessment is badly needed.

By and large, we have made a statement of objective in this Bill. If the statement of objective is to be implemented on a day-to-day basis a number of other things need to be considered, in particular the one that has been emphasised, I suspect, over and over again. Considering the volume of work that is going to be imposed upon the National Archives offices once they are founded, the sheer volume of catching up with all the documentation which is currently not a matter of public record, enormously increased resources will have to be allocated. To pass this legislation without resources is simply going to be a question of a little rubber stamp which says that "You can have access to the records in principle but in practice either we do not know where they are or we cannot let you get at them because they are so inaccessible, or we have not got them collated, catalogued or filed because we have no resources." Therefore we will substitute a de jure prohibition on publication with an effective de facto prohibition on publication unless resources of a substantial kind are made available.

Indeed, Senator Bulbulia's contrast between the staff available to the Northern Ireland Public Record Office and our own is a very good illustration of that. The figure that I got from my source of briefing was even more unflattering to this country than the one she had. I had 30 per cent as against 80 per cent which is somewhat less than 50 per cent, but I will accept that it is 50-50.

I am also disappointed that public organisations as defined in the Bill will only disclose records if they are requested by the Taoiseach to include them and that there is no compulsion on many public organisations to make their records available. I do not see why a similar compulsion or a similar procedure, however conservative or cautious it may be, could not apply to all public organisations. I do not understand why there has to be a distinction between the bodies listed in the schedule and public organisations generally. It may leave enormous gaps in the work of future historians or current historians if public organisations are not subject to the same requirements as the other bodies listed in the schedule. Somebody made the brief point to me that Oireachtas administrative records seem to be missing in terms of the transfer of records to the archives. I wonder if that is an oversight, or is it contained implicitly, or is there some reason for leaving them out?

In conclusion, I think that a Bill such as this is a small, important and necessary step on the road to a proper democracy. A proper democracy is one not just where the citizens have the right to elect a government, which is a very fundamental right, but have the right to the maximum possible information in order to make their decision about the choice of government and decisions about issues as they are presented to them. That, of course, implies access to historical documents and access to information which enables the background to various issues that arise today to be presented. Equally, it implies access, in a country with an expanding bureaucracy and with a highly centralised decision-making structure, to current information as well. That implies, of course, the urgent necessity for the production of a freedom of information Bill. As with a freedom of information Bill, so with an archives Bill. The central core of such a provision must be that the decision about what is or is not for public access cannot be left with those who, perhaps, have an interest in the outcome of that decision, whether it be current records or previous records.

It seems to be an unsatisfactory process for decision-making to allow those who have an interest, past, current or future, in what is or is not disclosed to have the final say in what should be disclosed. I would appeal, therefore, either on this Stage, or on Committee Stage in this House, or in the other House later on, that the whole question of the structural decision-making about what should be made a matter of public records should be re-examined and a strong independent element be introduced into it.

Beyond that I welcome the Bill. I congratulate the Taoiseach on what must have been a considerable effort on his part, considering the other pressures that are on him, to produce complex legislation like this. Since it is the first time that he has been in the Seanad during his current period as Taoiseach that I can remember I want, again, to welcome him to the Seanad.

Mr. Ferris

My first note would be the same as that on which Senator Ryan has just ended. On the Order of Business today, a comment was made by the Leader of the Opposition about the Taoiseach's absence. Within four minutes of my reassurance that the Taoiseach was coming and with the knowledge that he was engaged in the other House, I was delighted to see that the Taoiseach arrived. I welcome him. It is not his first visit in his period as Taoiseach and he is welcome at any time. I would like to commend him personally and his Department on initiating this legislation in the Seanad. It is very important legislation. It is important to all of us, to our children and grandchildren, to know that because you have set up this legislation it ensures that the records of this country, both public and otherwise, will be available for posterity.

I had to chuckle to myself when Seantor Brendan Ryan mentioned that he would like some information to be made available a year afterwards and not 30 years afterwards. I am sure the Taoiseach would agree that if that was possible the winning and losing of elections would be quite a simple matter because the public would be quite interested at times to know what happened in the very recent past as shown in the records of Government.

However, I welcome the Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. We feel that it is very important legislation in that it will provide facilities for the amalgamation of the Public Record Office of Ireland and the State Papers Office to form a single administrative entity under the title of the National Archives. There are also other provisions which are very important and which we will deal with at length on Committee Stage.

Senator Bulbulia raised a very important item regarding the possibility of access to other papers and documents that are presently not under the jurisdiction of the Houses of the Oireachtas or, indeed, of the State and are in private property at the moment. We all have them in our own constituencies. Some of these are of immense value from the point of view of historians and also from the past history of this country, going back over centuries. Some of these at the moment are housed in St. John's Library, Cashel, which is under the auspices of the Church of Ireland. It is a tremendous library. It is being preserved through the private enterprise of the Church of Ireland and through voluntary subscriptions from people who want to ensure that the records that are available there will be preserved for public inspection. They are of tremendous interest to people from all over the world.

I am delighted that in section 14 the fact that people have documents in private property is not being interfered with. This Bill does not give any powers to claim ownership over those although they might be in the national interest, so to speak. Possibly with a very active director — whom I am sure the Taoiseach will appoint — access could be had to these documents for copying and preservation in the interests of the history of the State, and the private ownership of the documents would not be interfered with. I am quite sure that many of these private collections throughout the country and, indeed, those under the control of county library committees or county councils, would be made available for copying purposes and we could maintain them in the interests of people in the future. I think that is an important section in the Bill. It would also ensure that people would not be reluctant to come forward with information and with documents which they feel would be of interest to us.

I have no problems whatsoever with the restrictions in the Bill that deal with retaining certain rights for people. In section 8 the Taoiseach has ensured that the public interest is of paramount importance. It is unfair to say that public servants, by their very nature, would in any way be the arbitrary deciding group of people in regard to what is in the public interest. I think the public interest is well serviced by the public service and, indeed, by members of Government who are the political heads of Departments. I have no doubt whatsoever that when judgments like this are made they are definitely made in the interests of the public. We also want to ensure that people who give us information in good faith will not suffer because of any breach of statutory duty which would forfeit that good faith. If that happened, we would not have anybody who would give us information in good faith. It is important that they should have the reassurance which is given in section 8 (4), particularly as that information is quite frequently given to us in confidence. We all agree that the institutions of the State have to be protected from many matters which could not be made public. It is important — and I think accepted by everybody — that those are the areas that should be exempted in a Bill of this nature.

I am pleased also that in section 20 the director and his board will produce an annual report which will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. This will give us, as Members of the Oireachtas, an opportunity to discuss a report which, I am sure, will be comprehensive. It will also inform us about items that we were probably unaware of and which were present and available to people to inspect. I have no doubt that when the reports are laid before the Houses we will have an opportunity to discuss them at length. We will have an opportunity to pass comments. Indeed, if there are any further amendments to this legislation that are not envisaged now, that opportunity could then be availed of by the Taoiseach, or his Department to introduce them. Possibly there might be other areas that we should get involved in and it would be open to the Houses of the Oireachtas then to make any suggestions they feel suitable to the Taoiseach and his Department.

It is a very comprehensive piece of legislation. I can see the stamp of the Taoiseach's hand on it. I know his commitment in this area and I want to compliment him. I can assure him that he has the support of all sides of the House in bringing forward this legislation. I have no doubt that on Committee Stage if there are sections that worry anybody we will have an opportunity to discuss them. I am also conscious of the constraints on the Taoiseach's time. I know he wants to respond to this debate and for that reason I want to be brief now. I want to thank him for introducing the legislation and for honouring this House by having it initiated here.

Mr. E. Ryan

I would like to join with previous speakers in welcoming the Taoiseach to the House. He is always very welcome but I suggest that he should not confine himself to dealing with matters which are more than 30 years old. I would like to welcome the Bill and to congratulate the Government on bringing it in. It is a Bill which is very necessary. As far as the Second Stage is concerned, it is a Bill on which one could be very brief indeed because the principle is a very good one. The Bill does all that is required of it very well indeed. It provides for ensuring that important records are preserved and, even more importantly, that they will be available to those who legitimately wish to see them. It also provides for destroying records which are of no value in order to avoid the possibility of records piling up and making it difficult in the long run to know what is of use and what is not.

As previous speakers have mentioned, the circumstances in which records may be withheld from the public are crucial. It is not going to be possible to work out a system which will always be proved correct and reasonable in all circumstances. It would be almost impossible to do that. Every effort should be made to provide a system which will ensure that there will be no undue sensitivity in this regard. The tendency will be for the Civil Service, who will be in charge of this, to withhold anything that seems to be, for one reason or another, not in the national interest to divulge. Civil servants tend to be unduly cautious in these matters. The Civil Service, which is so admirable in many ways, has as its greatest weakness the ability to make decisions, which is a balanced decision, not to be over-cautious, not to say that "It might be better not to divulge this, so we will not take any chances." The Bill sets out ways in which it is hoped to overcome this and to minimise this tendency. I think also that it seems to be envisaged by the Minister of State that regulations will be made in this respect. Such regulations may help to ensure that the cautious view is not always taken. I presume that these regulations will be made available to both Houses so that they can be discussed and that they will set out, in so far as it is possible, the ground rules for deciding when certain records may not be divulged to the public. It may not be possible to have absolutely perfect rules in this respect but I think a particular effort should be made to ensure that this is well provided for. It is a most crucial aspect of the Bill.

The second aspect in ensuring that records are available—the second way in which the administration of this Bill may not live up to the Bill itself—is the question simply of staff. No matter how good the Bill is, or how good the Act eventually will be, if there is not proper administration, or if staff is not available to administer it, then, of course, the Act will not be of any great assistance. I say this in particular because in the past I have on a number of occasions, on behalf of historians and other people, asked to see certain records and was refused. I was told eventually that the reason why they were not made available was not because they were confidential, and not because it would be against the public interest or the national interest to make them available, but quite simply that they were in such a mess that it would be impossible to find the records and it would be impossible to allow anybody to go in and find them for themselves. It was simply a matter of there not being administration available or a staff available to present the records which the writer required. This could still happen unless very practical steps are taken to ensure that staff will be available to administer when this Bill becomes law.

I am glad to see that there will be a National Archives Advisory Council set up which will consist of at least four people from outside the public service. I hope that more than half of the council will be from outside the public service. That will ensure that the way in which National Archives are administered will not only be effective and competent but that a perspective will be maintained on what is required. If there is any public disquiet about the way in which it is being administered, the council will be in a position to give advice and allay fears. This is a very important Bill and I welcome it. Any criticisms or comments about the Bill can be made on Committee Stage but, generally speaking, it is an excellent Bill and I have much pleasure in welcoming it.

Mr. Connor

I should like to welcome the Taoiseach to the House and express our appreciation to him for honouring us with his presence. I, like other Members who have spoken, should like to welcome the content and aims of the Bill. As the Minister said, it is a long overdue measure to establish a public policy on the care and treatment of Government records and papers that have archival or will have historical value. Since Independence, there has been something of a possessive and secretive approach to opening up in retrospect the vast corpus of material which contains the definitive insight on how the mass of Government policies were arrived at over the past six decades.

The various interests of modern political history and public administration whether they be scholars, academics, students, or just ordinary citizens, will delight that, at long last, there will now exist a formal library in a single entity where one can read and study the way Governments saw and reacted to the problems besetting the infant State in the first ten years of its life. That is a piece of history of monumental importance and uniqueness since those Cabinets, and the administrators that served them, had not a single example from which they could refer to as an example of previous experience.

A new insight into the perception and reactions of contemporary native Governments to the great depression in the thirties and the political agitation at home in that period, the forties and the great European war, and the paramilitary and subversive problems at home during that period will emerge following the opening of those papers of that period. I find it a great pity that even if the Bill passed all Stages and was signed by the President this evening and if tomorrow we had, in fact, the National Archives with its advisory council, its director and staff and a building open to accommodate everything, including the public, that we could have access only to Government and Cabinet papers going back to the mid-fifties. I consider the period of 30 years far too long to hold the cloak of secrecy over State papers.

There must be a way of saving embarrassment, if that is the real reason, to persons who may feature for one reason or another in Government records, other than waiting for almost half a lifetime before publication. A period of 20 years is long enough. The 30 year rule has more to do with the innate possessiveness and penchant towards secrecy that is always present in the attitude of administrators and Governments and perhaps we have borrowed it from the British. This reluctance to publish has more to do with this than it has to do with protecting reputations and saving personal embarrassment.

The 30 year rule means we will not get a Government's eye-view for several years yet of the great economic and social changes that were put in train and, indeed, took place in the latter half of the fifties and in the first half of the sixties. That was the decade that saw the change from the era of post-independence Ireland to what is now generally accepted as modern Ireland. What a pity the modern political historian writing on the past 25 years or so will have no better sources than the historian's own intuition, conjecture, leaks, the odd political memoirs and the odd piece of excellent Watergate-type of investigative journalism that comes forward now and again such as for example, the bestselling book The Boss.

The most bizarre period of Government ever experienced here was during that mercifully short period in 1982 when, in the words of one very eminent observer, democracy in Ireland had a very narrow and lucky escape. Yet, a proper study of that strange administration, and the actions of some of the very strange individuals who served in it, will not be available, it seems, for another 30 years. It is a great pity that the cloak of secrecy will not be lifted for that period of time. I submit to the House that that is going too far with the principle of protecting reputations and saving embarrassment.

I should now like to deal with the major shortcoming in this legislation as I see it. Its very title is something of a misnomer. It would be better named, National Archives (Government Papers) Bill, 1985. The Bill does not reach out to the National Archives that need urgent attention because they are threatened by deterioration due to lack of modern scientific care. The Bill does not reach out to help that very significant portion of the National Archives held in private collections which are endangered because of economic factors. There is the problem also of archives that the public cannot see, like the archives and papers in the National Library that are not available to the public because of lack of storage and reading space. The former Kildare Street Club building has been acquired as an extension to the National Library but it has not been brought into service apparently because of staff recruitment problems and, no doubt, by more than a little inertia on the part of the Office of Public Works and the Department of Education.

I made the point of archival material being under threat because of the effects of wear and tear over the passage of time and the effects of acid activity in papers, especially newspaper material, which takes place over a relatively short period of time. This is a major problem in all libraries. Quite a sizeable proportion of archival and manuscript material in the National Library is endangered because of the effects of what I have just described. I would like the Bill to have addressed itself to this problem by the establishment of a State conservation laboratory and workshop or by direct State liaison with a scientific institution specialising in the application of modern scientific methods and care that arrest the deterioration of papers that contain information of historical importance. Many of them have reached a state of critical fragility. It is amazing also that the National Library or, indeed, the National Museum, do not have even an ordinary repair workshop to repair and restore damaged artefacts and manuscripts.

I mentioned earlier items or collections in private hands and I should like to mention one of the most important collections in private hands in the country. It is in fact in my own constituency in Roscommon, the archives at Clonalis House in Castlerea. There is not in the Bill any news of help on the way for this absolutely unique and rare collection, some of the items in it old enough to almost warrant the description "ancient", but, nevertheless, an endangered collection. This collection of manuscripts, books, papers, records, and so on, amounting to over 100,000 items, have been carefully amassed and carefully kept and cared for over centuries by the O'Connor Don family at Castlerea. This collection is a most fascinating mosaic which describes the history of Connacht and, indeed, the history of Ireland for over 400 years. It is history told by describing the life and times, the fortunes and misfortunes of this ancient Irish ruling family, the O'Connor Don, who by their tradition of "The Warrior King"— one thinks of Turlough Mór and Cathal Chiobh Dearg — their genius — one thinks of Charles O'Connor of Ballinagach — and their ingenuity, have remained in the one place and very much on the same lands for possibly more than 2,000 years.

I might mention some of the more outstanding items to be found at Clonalis. There is a collection of papers going back to the 16th century giving the last recorded verdicts made under the Brehon Laws in Ireland. There is a 16th century manuscript, in the most delicate hand engraving, of Bardic poems written and collected at that time. There is a document that gives a list of Irish aristocracy who attended a Parliament in Dublin in 1585 and there is also a comtemporary description of a Parliament meeting in Ennis in 1585 at which it is recorded that "ordinances were passed" and "assessments were made".

There are papers of that year also which clearly indicate that as early as the beginning of the 16th century the old Gaelic heritage was on its way out and the way of life was eroded to a very significant degree. The 17th century collection has some very interesting items. For instance, there is a contemporary copy of the death warrant of Charles I and a copy of the articles of surrender of Galway to the Parliamentary Forces in 1650.

The 18th century collection contains letters, papers, speeches, and so on by such notables of that time as Edmund Burke, Owen Roe O'Neill, Napper Tandy, and Theobald McKenna, to mention just a few. Here we have a fascinating insight into the way those very influential people and, indeed, others less influential, saw major events like the American and French revolutions, the state of unrest here and the state of relations between Ireland and England at the time. From this period too, we have the extensive papers, notes and books in the collection that made up the life's work of that great historian and antiquarian, Charles O'Connor of Bellinagare.

Perhaps the most interesting items in the 19th century collection are contained in the wide ranging and comprehensive list of papers kept by three members of the family, who were M.P.'s, covering the greater part of that century. Here we have an account by people who took part in or who observed at first hand O'Connell and the Repeal and Emancipation Movement. We have first hand accounts of the agrarian unrest, the most harrowing accounts of the Famine, the rise of Parnell and so on. There is a letter from one enlightened women in Roscommon to Mr. Charles Owen O'Connor, M.P., in 1876, asking that he support a Bill to bring about the improvement of the economic and social status of women. From this period too, we find Buntings first collection of the music of Turlough O'Carolan.

I hope I have not bored the House, or the Taoiseach, with my chronology of items. They were just a few items picked at random in this most important collection of the National Archives outside of the State's hands which are threatened. What a pity that the Bill does not reach out to help this collection and, indeed, other privately held collections here. I suggest that in the case of collections like Clonalis the Government set up a trust or body to protect and care for such priceless and irreplaceable pieces of the national heritage. Such a trust or body could be made up of representatives of the National University—Galway would be the appropriate one in the case of Clonalis—the local county council, the National Library and, of course, there would have to be representatives of the family having ownership or custody of any such collection. Such a body or trust would have to be adequately funded and have at least the power to employ a trained archivist for each major collection to look after the papers, manuscripts and so on and to arrange their availability to students, scholars and the public. It is also important that all such collections are kept in situ. In modern times there has been a move to take such collections to a centre but more enlightened thinking suggests that all such collections very much relate to their own surroundings. It is there they should be kept.

Mr. Ross

Like all Members, I welcome the Bill in principle although I must say that I admire the extraordinary dexterity with which some people have been able to make local political speeches on a very unlikely Bill. I also welcome the Taoiseach's interest in it and his visit to the House. I hope that because the Bill is politically non-contentious and is a non-party political Bill it will be open on Committee Stage to non-party, sensible amendments. I gather that maybe the Government have some already. I also welcome the fact that the Bill has come to the Seanad first because it is the sort of Bill we can deal with first and which we could amend before it goes to the Dáil. It is a recognition of the work that the Seanad can do on Bills like this.

It is very important that a Bill of this sort is discussed at some length and in some detail. The principal reason for this is because the Bill is likely, judging by the record of Bills of this sort, to remain on the Statute Book unamended for very many years. It is the first such Bill which we have had and it is long overdue, about 63 years overdue. The Public Record Office was destroyed in 1922 and the professional staff of that office was run down to three by the sixties. That is an almost unique situation in western Europe. Admittedly in 1974 five posts of archivist were created, but at that time there was no staff to back up those five posts of archivists. In our neglect of the archives we are quite out on our own and outstanding certainly in civilised Europe.

The amount of material which exists and which has to be sorted out is quite massive, because not all the material was destroyed in 1922.

The amount since 1922 is huge and the extent of the problem, and the extent of the problem that the Bill attempts to tackle, is immense. While those who drafted the Bill are right in principle about what is in it they do not quite realise the extent of the organisation, the staff or the statutory facilities which are necessary to follow up on a Bill of this sort. The Public Record Office is, obviously, much too small compared with any other country, especially with Northern Ireland. While the Bill is well intentioned, and while we all agree with it in principle and with its objectives in principle, it will be greatly lacking and in some ways redundant if we do not see it implemented properly. What we would like to hear — and we did not hear it in the Minister of State's opening spech — is some commitment or timetable for the support staff which will be necessary for the Bill if its provisions are to be effective.

I know that the fiscal crisis is a very fair excuse for not appointing additional staff to Departments in this way, but in this case we might make some exception because, first of all, it is unlikely that we will have another Bill of this sort for a very long time. Secondly, the freeze on appointments has been broken from time to time. This is possibly a unique situation because an archives Bill appears to come only once in a century.

In this context I should like to say that since 1981 the National Library of Ireland has been without an inspector of manuscripts. I understand this state of affairs has been brought about by the embargo on appointments in the Civil Service. The last person to hold the position of inspector of manuscripts surveyed over 500 collections of estate and family papers throughout the State. Many of these collections, which dated from medieval times, were afterwards acquired by the National Library. The work of surveying should be an ongoing one and to have broken it at this time has been harmful. It prevents valuable documents from being destroyed through neglect or leaving the country and re-appearing in salesrooms in London and they may never come back here. Therefore, the post of inspector of manuscripts is important in the sphere of the national economy as a whole as well as in the sphere of national culture. The scope of inspectorate of manuscripts should be broadened to include literary manuscripts and private papers of leaders in the field of politics and in social and economic spheres. Therefore, I hope to see a move to fill the post of inspector of manuscripts in the near future and as a direct result of the passing of the Bill.

The Minister of State gave us some indication that the Government have in mind a site for the accommodation necessary for the implementation of the provisions of the Bill. What is necessary is that we must see not just the hard print of a Bill but a plan for the long term and the stages in which this is to be done. We must know where the building is, how much space will be available and what is going to be necessary. If this is not done most of the intention of the legislation is in great danger of being unfulfilled.

As Senator Bulbulia said, there are other areas which are very important, such as the training of archivists. This, to my mind, with an untrained eye, is a very complicated science and a very specialised one. In this area we should have specific commitments and a specific timetable both at the professional and sub-professional levels, at the level of keepers of papers and at the level of clerks. Conservation facilities are very important. They are vital. There is room for cooperation between Marsh's Library and the National Library because material could easily be damaged if it is displayed to the public. It must be withheld in many cases until repairs are done because all paper must not only be preserved but it must be conserved. All paper is vulnerable to damage.

On the specific items and objectives of the Bill, many archivists have reservations about the powers which the director will have. In section 4 there are limits to the powers of the director in examining the records of a Department. It is essential that the director, once he is appointed, should be allowed to examine all the documents available, not just at the request of a Minister of the Government but he should have the absolute power to do it. It should only be held back for security reasons. The initiative for the examination of records should come not from the Government, as it does in the Bill, or from the Minister but from the director. I will be putting forward an amendment to that effect on Committee Stage.

There are limitations on the director in another section where it confers too sweeping powers on the offices of a Department, where they can certify that records held for more than 30 years are required by the Department. That is limiting the powers of the director. He should be given the initiative to certify these records or, at least, be consulted because if too much power is given to civil servants the power of the director will be undermined and, therefore, the value of the Bill will be undermined.

On a minor point, the reports of the director of National Archives, and of the council, should not only be produced to the Oireachtas but should be published because those reports, which will be annual reports according to the Bill, could be a useful source of work for scholars and historians in the future. I will come to those points on Committee Stage. In general, I welcome the Bill.

Mrs. Robinson

I welcome the Bill warmly. It has been a long time in gestation and its publication has generated considerable public interest. Some of this is specialist interest, some of it is even vested interest, but there is also a very considerable amount of genuine public-spirited interest. It is fair to say that we would like to live up to our reputation as a people with a real concern for our history and for our background and that we would like to take better care of our historical resources and of the data base which forms the background to us as a people. It is, indeed, as other Senators said, a very welcome move on the part of the Taoiseach, and his Minister of State, to introduce the Bill in this House and to enable Senators to have an opportunity both for a broad debate on Second Stage and, I would hope, for a very lively and productive Committee Stage.

Most Senators have had the benefit— as I certainly have — of considerable briefing from various bodies. Certainly, I have had very useful and informative representations from the Irish Society for Archives, from the Irish Labour History Society, from the Society of Archivists and from a number of individuals, particularly in the universities, who take a special interest in the way in which we treat our general archives, whether they be State archives or archives in the custody of private bodies, and who genuinely want this Bill to represent the best wisdom and the best balancing of what are necessarily limited resources in providing a proper basis for future access to storage and general custody and care of our archives.

For that reason, before I look at the Bill and at the detailed provisions it contains and identify its objectives, I would like to look behind it at the kind of reality that we are speaking about: it is important to ascertain this. A number of Senators have referred to two key aspects — the question of staffing and the question of accommodation. Senator Bulbulia and Senator Ryan and others referred to the unfavourable staff ratios. In real terms, statistics between Northern Ireland and this part of the country do not necessarily tell us a great deal but I would hope that the Taoiseach in contributing to the Second Stage of this debate will make it clear what the projected staffing levels as envisaged at present will be and what the importance of this in ensuring the proper custody and care of the archives will be.

Secondly, there is the question of accommodation and the reference made by the Minister of State when this Bill was introduced on 13 March on this issue was quite oblique. Other Senators are more aware than I am of the detailed plans for the provision of what the Minister of State described as a purpose-built building to be provided but certainly I am not aware of the detail of this and I think it is important. The Minister of State at column 1042 of the Official Report of 13 March 1985 referred very briefly and not in any specific detail to the longer term plan. He said:

Preliminary planning work on a purpose-built centre has commenced. It is envisaged that this will be provided on a site already in State ownership.

In the meantime, arrangements are being made between the head of the State Paper-Public Record Office and the Office of Public Works to provide satisfactory interim space to accommodate the influx of records which will be accelerated by the enactment of this Bill.

Again, if we could have more specific details, more chapter and verse on that, even a timescale and a planned approach to when we will move from the interim arrangement to this purpose-built centre, that would be helpful to us on Second Stage.

That brings me to the fact that this Bill, as I think is becoming the general practice with legislation, is a Bill which provides, in section 25, that it can be introduced in stages. It can come into operation on such day or days as may be fixed by order or orders of the Taoiseach. Again, if the Taoiseach could inform the House what his plans are in that regard, it would be helpful. It is intended that there will be some delay in relation to certain stages? What is the reason for this? What is the likely prognosis, presuming that the Bill makes a relatively speedy and constructive passage through both Houses?

I would like to turn now to the terms of the Bill. I would agree very much with an observation made by a number of Senators that this Bill, because it deals with a specific area, is, in fact, essentially a Committee Stage Bill. There are a number of issues which we will want to look at very closely and hopefully to improve on Committee Stage. The explanatory memorandum sets out the four main objectives and I think these are more or less translated into the text of the Bill, but I certainly see a number of either potential loopholes or areas where there is a lack of clarity and precision which we would want to come back to on Committee Stage. The main purpose, the amalgamation of the Public Records Office of Ireland and the State Paper Office to form a single administrative entity to be called the National Archives, is undoubtedly welcome. As it is envisaged at the moment there is a lot of emphasis on the administrative accomplishment of that task and we can look at that again on Committee Stage and see whether we are satisfied that it is not just a matter of rationalisation of an administrative kind and that we are satisfied that it achieves the best form of constructive rationalisation of resources there.

The second main objective identified is to provide for the preservation of departmental records and for the disposal of records which are no longer required in connection with the administration of a Department of State and which in the view of the National Archives have no archival value. Again, we want to look on Committee Stage at the way in which the Bill represents the capacity both for adequate preservation of records, for management or records and disposal of them and see that we are quite sure that the balance has been properly struck there. The third main objective is to provide for the transfer to the National Archives and the making available for public inspection of departmental records more than 30 years old except for records which may be retained on certain grounds.

I want to come in a moment to one aspect of the Bill which I would like to question on Second Stage because it may be a matter for amendment on Committee Stage. The Bill seems to rest upon a framework of what I would call voluntarism, to a degree — I do not know if that word is appropriate or not — to a willingness on everybody's part to be very archive-orientated, to be very prepared to share the resource, to make available etc. I give some examples of this. For example, in section 4 (1) (c) in relation to one of the very important functions of the director there is included and I quote:

The acquisition of departmental records in accordance with this Act and, at the request of the appropriate member of the Government, the examination of Departmental records.

We need to question that framework —"at the request of". Is there going to be that request? Is it going to be arbitrary because some Departments may request and others will not? What kind of result will emerge from that? If we could be sure that all representative parties were extremely keen on securing the maximum accessibility and maximum public access to the archive material, then there will be fewer worries. That is one area. In section 12, which is an extremely important section, again there is a total dependence on the voluntary disposal of others and the voluntary willingness of others to co-operate. Section 12 provides that the Taoiseach at the request of a public service organisation may declare the records or documents, or a particular class of such records or documents specified in the declaration of that organisation, to be departmental records for the purposes of this Act. In subsection (2) there is a particular provision relating to local authorities and that this would be a reserved function of local authorities.

I share Senator Bulbulia's comments in relation to the importance of the archives and records of local authorities—not so that we should have Waterford because somebody in Waterford pushes it and maybe one or two others around the country — but so that we have in fact a good methodology, a good system to ensure that we are providing for the accumulation of these records and for their proper examination and storage and for proper access to the public. This is a matter we may have to come back to. An interesting question is raised by the framing of section 12 because it says: "The Taoiseach at the request of a public service organisation"— and public service organisation is very broadly defined as including a local authority, health board or a body established by or under statute and financed wholly or partly by grants or loans made by a member of the Government or by the issue of shares taken up by a member of the Government. So, it would be a very broad range of our State-sponsored bodies, local authorities health boards, etc. If they request, does that "may" mean "shall"? Is the Taoiseach required to declare the record or documents in that case to be Departmental records for the purpose of the Act or, are we conferring a discretion on the Taoiseach? If we are conferring a discretion, how does the Taoiseach propose to exercise that discretion? In other words, are we relying on a voluntary request then being mandatory? Once the request is made, does the Taoiseach comply with it? Or, should there be a different type of filter in relation to certain records being classified as Departmental records and transferred to the Taoiseach's Department?

I would like to refer to some aspects of the Bill which we should examine more closely at the Committee Stage. One key provision will be the role of the Director of the National Archives, and that point has been made by a number of Senators who have spoken in this debate. At the moment, the role appears to be a rather secondary and residual one. At this stage and subject to what arguments may be made at Committee Stage, I would favour a stronger and clearer role for the Director of National Archives. I would certainly favour more initiative in relation to examination of Departmental records — not to have it at the behest of or dependant upon a request from a Department in that regard.

At this stage I question the capability generally of all Departments — some Departments may be better than others — to discharge the responsibility which at present they have under the terms of the Bill for the identification of records, for decisions in relation to their transfer or to their disposal, because I would tend to share the view put forward by some of the representative bodies who have briefed us that this is a professional task, that there is a degree of skill and professional judgment involved. I would like to be sure that we got the balance right in relation to the Bill. Therefore, I believe we should look again at the role of the director and the responsibility of Departments in this regard.

Undoubtedly, the appraisal of archival material is a very crucial and professional task. We would require to be satisfied that this was going to be properly achieved and not become an arbitrary and ad hoc situation because of the primary role of Departments, and dependant on their goodwill in effect and their willingness to cooperate.

I am also very interested in the submissions which individual Senators have received in relation to the management of the material of an archive, this difficult problem of deciding what is to be retained in essential form and what is to be disposed of as not being crucial. Again, I would not be happy that that would simply be a Departmental decision. I take it that I have misconstrued the section in that the Taoiseach is indicating that that will not be the case. There is even, in relation to the 30 year rule, a provision for review afterwards if material has not been made available, but that review is to be carried out by an official of the Department. Is that the correct way in which to ensure the desired result or should there be some authorised person, some designated person in the Taoiseach's Department, somebody on the National Archives staff with a particular role who at least has to be consulted?

I very much approve of and welcome the fact that there is mechanism for review not less than every five years of material which is not made available under the 30 year rule, but I do not like the idea that this is simply an in-house, departmental role. There are other considerations which apply and these should be taken into account.

There are a few more mainly Committee Stage points but it might be useful to indicate them at this stage because they seem to be matters which will probably be the subject of amendment at Committee Stage. There are a number of points on which I would propose to table amendments for consideration. Perhaps the Taoiseach could explain in his reply why a matter was framed in the way it was? For example, in section 1 (2) (d) there is provision for amending the schedule and under subsection (2) (d) it is provided that the Taoiseach, "after consultation with the Director may, by order amend the schedule to this Act." That would seem to be a function in which the National Archives Advisory Council would have a specific role. In section 19 the council has a general power to advise the Taoiseach and yet there is an express provision that he the Taoiseach should consult with the director only in relation to that particular function. It seems to me it would be desirable that he would also consult with the National Archives Advisory Council, which I propose to discuss in a moment.

In section 2, in relation to the definition or description of departmental records the key phrase there seems to me to be potentially unnecessarily narrow because it describes the category—and we may wish to add a little to the "books, maps, papers," etc. "made or received, and held in connection with its business, by a Department of State". That seems to be a very tightly-drawn phrase that could be unnecessarily narrow. It might be that it would be preferable to have a broader phrase because some materials would be included on a Departmental file that might not have been, in a narrow sense, in connection with a particular business but might have been accumulated either because they were submissions from outside bodies or in some other capacity. Some broader phrase there such as "in the course of the Departmental business" might be more appropriate.

In section 6, I was very interested in the wording in relation to the staff of the National Archives. Perhaps when the Taoiseach is replying, if he is in a position to give some projections in relation to staffing, he might also comment on the wording of section 6. It says that the Taoiseach may appoint the staff — and this is the interesting wording —"with the concurrence from time to time of the Minister for the Public Service,..." We have had many examples in our legislation of needing the consent of the Minister for Finance and of the Public Service. Is there a subtle distinction, as I would hope there would be, between "consent" and "concurrence," and is it significant that the Minister for Finance does not figure at all and is that, therefore, an optimistic future being predicted for the staffing of the public archives?

Another matter which I would like to deal with is the National Archives Advisory Council under section 19. Like other Senators, I welcome the establishment of the council. However, I note that in section 19 its assumptions are not clearly identified. It may be that it is not necessary to have them identified in express terms in the statute. Basically, as the name implies, it is an advisory council but I would have thought that it is a council which should advise from a position of being representative in a balanced way of the expertise which exists and therefore should be drawn from those who do have a particular reason to advise. The role is quite a technical one. The material they would be dealing with is of considerable technicality. I just wondered whether it would be possible to be clearer on what would be envisaged to be part of the role of the advisory council.

Under section 20, it is extremely important that not only should there be an obligation, as is proposed, on the director and on the advisory council to submit annual reports which would be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas but that these reports should be published. We have seen in the past the problem — perhaps a problem of resources — of the absence of published reports. This has been a net loss to those who are interested in this area. They need not be terribly lengthy reports but they should be available more widely than just being laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas with a copy or two laid in the Library of the Oireachtas. They should be published so that a wider breadth of scholarship can be aware of them.

There is another related area which seems to have a significance for a body such as the National Archives Body and that is the whole area of export documents and manuscripts. I am aware that the Government have established a committee to advise on this area. I wonder whether it might be possible, even in this legislation in relation to documents specifically, to deal with the problem of control of exports. Apart from valuable pictures and other items leaving this country and it being regrettable and necessary to strike a balance with the principles for the free movement of goods under the EC Treaty there is also a concern among archivists and others about the outflow of archival material, particularly from private sources, or from semipublic bodies, none of it of extreme value in itself but a net loss to those who depend upon that type of material for research. Because it is going out with absolutely no monitoring of a public nature it is not possible sometimes to ascertain where this material has gone. Perhaps that is something that can be looked at. Even though there is a broader problem that is being discussed in another context it would be useful if at least thought could be given to whether it might be possible in this Bill to provide some sort of controls and sanctions in relation to the export of documentary material.

I have one final comment to make on the Bill. I warmly welcome it, not least because I have been influenced by a very close association — an association in my capacity as a spouse — with another archive, namely the Irish Architectural Archives which was established in the late seventies and which has flourished as a private body. Until very recently it was a body which sought but did not obtain Government funding. It now has benefited from grants from the Government. More than anything else, it thrives on the enormous enthusiasm and dedication of the staff and of the board of the Irish Architectural Archives. The particular skill which we will have to bring to bear will be to try to ensure that this archives which is, of course, an important State archive resource, retains the enthusiasm and dedication of the staff as well as having the benefit of the resources of the state and that it achieves the objectives which have been very widely shared and very well expressed by members of this House. This is not in any sense a party political issue. It is an important measure which merits the enthusiasm and support of the House and which will lead to a very constructive and productive Committee Stage. Like other Senators, I welcome the Bill and hope it will have a relatively speedy passage through both Houses.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I would like to begin my brief contribution like the other Members by welcoming the Taoiseach to the House. I would like to record an acknowledgement and appreciation of his personal interest and commitment in this important area. I believe it is a very important area. I know that there are people at present who say that we have more serious things with which we should be concerned. This is also true, but legislation in all areas can be done in parallel.

The situation is not totally disastrous in this particular area but, like the other Members, I want to say that it is very unsatisfactory. My view of this Bill would be, more or less, that it is a good Bill but it could be more comprehensive. I am glad that it was introduced in this House. The purpose of the Bill is mainly four-pronged. It provides for the amalgamation of the Public Record Office of Ireland and the State Paper Office to form a single administrative entity to be called the National Archives. It provides for the preservation of departmental records and for the disposal of other records which are not considered worth keeping. It provides for the transfer to the National Archives and the making available for public inspection of departmental records more than 30 years old. Finally, it provides for the establishment of a National Archives Advisory Council and appointment of a director who will be a very important official.

There are valid criticisms regarding preservation, conservation and appreciation. We are lacking as a people as regards care, respect for and appreciation of our national heritage, culture and the legacy that has been bequeathed to us. This is nowhere more evident than in the area of archives. I feel it would be desirable to have all these records housed in the one building or in buildings convenient to each other. The Minister of State, Deputy Nealon, has told us that the site has been selected and is in State ownership. The fact of the ownership is not all that critical. What is very important is that it would be a suitable site in a suitable centre. Presently, the records are scattered very far apart. In Dublin alone, for example, we have a Public Record Office in the Four Courts; the state-of-the-country papers and rebellion papers in Dublin Castle; wills and deeds in the Probate Office, Henrietta Street; various archives like the Headford Papers, Pallock Papers and Powerscourt Papers in the National Library and the Public Record Office, and other collections scattered around the country in private libraries and big houses. Students of local history and writers are thus very inconvenienced. Many of our documents are not properly dated or indexed, which entails long searches on the part of researchers. This applies to rebellion papers and the state-of-the-country papers. These are kept in tied bundles and very often have to be tossed through to find the required item. This results in enormous waste of time. More importantly, all of the documents are liable to damage. Letters and manuscripts are very often folded. They become frayed at the edges. The folds deteriorate rapidly with the handling. All these important papers should be placed between transparent sheets so that they may be studied without damage.

We all know that a suitable building is most important. Air conditioning is necessary in that building. The temperature is critical. The air purity is important and the atmospheric state should be under strict control in such a building.

Everybody who has done any research knows that many documents were written with a quill pen and antiquated lettering and they are difficult to decipher. I suggest that they should be typed and attached to photocopies or originals for convenience. They should be dated and indexed by counties for the convenience of local historians.

Other Senators have mentioned that many people nowadays are interested in their roots and family history. Copies of the genealogical papers might be made available in county libraries. There is very good literature in the Genealogical Office which should be made available to local libraries. Many books, photographs, manuscripts, farm diaries, business accounts, school roll-books and records are in private houses. The people who own these should be encouraged to donate them or loan them to the National Archives.

More use should be made of microfilms and record tapes for storage of items of local interest in the county library. County councils, urban district councils, commissioners, corporations and all local government and public bodies should have their records deposited under similar conditions in the local public library of the county. In my own case, in Kells, in the urban district council I was fortunate to be able to initiate inquiries which resulted in the minute books and all other documents being taken from an outside store into the county library.

In 1938 the Department of Education, through the national schools, attempted to collect all available folklore. This is referred to in the schools' collection. As Deputy De Brun has already stated, this may be consulted at University College, Belfield, Dublin by prior arrangement. It is a pity that this plan was not continued. It should be taken up again, particularly in post primary schools.

Another area of interest is the area of Irish place names. Many of those have been lost. If the same procedure were adopted as was done on 1938 many of those old place-names would be saved.

One of the scheduled bodies under this Bill is the Ordnance Survey, and they have done wonderful work in this area. Their records are always required in the Ordnance Survey Office itself. Possibly copies could be made available to county libraries. The records of the Ordnance Survey are with the Royal Irish Academy but the parish names books are in the Ordnance Survey Office, as are the fair plans or fair maps which were the first maps produced by the Ordnance Survey. These are of great importance to researchers. Perhaps copies of those should be made available to county libraries as well.

I have already mentioned Irish place-names. There is great difficulty in tracing the derivation of these place-names. Very special qualifications are required to do so. As well as the qualification of languages, Latin and Irish and old Irish, local knowledge is also important. In my case I did a very unpretentious small history of my local parish of Kilbeg. I was helped in this area by the Irish place-names officer in the Ordnance Survey Office. There were some names with which he found difficulty. Two of them were Pericanall and Pericacloy. Unfortunately, this official, the late Eamon de h-Óir, told me that there must be some name "Periceach" which was the root of this name. By chance afterwards, I discovered what the derivation was. It was "pairc," the local pronunciation for park. It was Pericanall and Pericacloy. It is very difficult to get to the root of these names. Local knowledge is necessary. In a Bill of this kind something should be done to give help in this area to local historians, because what we have are the anglicised versions of these Irish place names.

We have the tragedy of lost records. In the Land Commission I was looking for copies of their plans over the period since the Land Commission was established, but I received a letter to say that the plans of all obsolete Land Commission house designs have been discarded in the various office moves of recent years and are no longer available. This is a tragedy because they are most important. I would like to refer to the minute books of the workhouses in Meath because they were very large volumes. We have a few hundred of them stored in a section of the courthouse in Kells. The public records office in Northern Ireland cleaned up and put in order, indexed and catalogued all these books free of charge. They were satisfied to list those books to help researchers and they came back twice to consult the books. There are similar books for all the country. The point I am trying to make here is — and this has been referred to before — that with regard to the tragedy in the north eastern part of the country the news is mainly negative. Here was a very positive area where we had co-operation, and this should be highlighted.

I would like to go into the records of crafts and craftwork and having those on video films. It has been mentioned already and I do not want to take up too much time. I want to make one point regarding the Book of Kells. I raised this on a previous occasion in the House. Most of these records, if possible, should be retained in the locality from which they came. We have the position with regard to the Book of Kells, which was written and painted around the 800 a.d. It was taken from the monastery in Kells in 1,007 a.d. and it was presented to Trinity College in 1661 a.d. Originally it was one single volume. Now it is in four volumes. It would be very appropriate if some arrangement could be made to give back one of these volumes, or even to loan it, because it would be a great help to scholars and to the tourist industry in the area. I do not want to go into it in any great detail. As others Members have said this legislation is long overdue.

Local history does not qualify for a tax exemption for writers. This is a great pity, and maybe the Taoiseach could do something in this regard. I agree that the finances to implement this Bill will be most important. I am glad that in section 12 we have recognition of the position of local representatives with regard to their functions. I would like to go into this in greater detail. Could I also ask the Taoiseach, when speaking on this Bill which is non-contentious and non-political, if he would also give consideration to bringing in the National Heritage Bill, 1982, which is very important and which also was a non-contentious and non-political Bill?

Finally, I believe that the late Éamon de Valera bequeathed many items of importance to the nation and these are with the Franciscans. A place has to be found for them before the end of the year or they will become the property of the Franciscans and this will cause a problem. It is very important that something should be done urgently in this regard.

There are other areas that I would like to go into, but I understand that the Taoiseach wants to make an early reply. I will conclude by saying once again that I welcome the Bill.

The Taoiseach

I would like to thank the House firstly for the generosity of their personal welcome to me and for the measure which I am introducing here. I am sorry that I was not able to be present for the early stages of the discussion on it. It is just 20 years next month since I first entered this House, and I am very glad to be back here.

The initiation of this legislation goes back many years. It is well known that my predecessor, Mr. Cosgrave, in 1976 made arrangements for the transfer of Cabinet records to the Public Record Office and that they be made available to historians. He also initiated the process of preparing this legislation which has, however, languished for certain periods in between, and it has fallen to me to bring it forward and advancing it to the point of introducing it in this House and bringing it into effect. I am very glad to have the opportunity to play this part, because although perhaps another impression exists now my own major disciplines in academic terms are in history rather than economics. Indeed, one of my professors, Professor Dudley Edwards, is the person to whom most credit is due in establishing archives as a discipline in its own right, in establishing UCD archives and training archivists. I would like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to him for his work and, indeed, because of the respect I owe to him as my own teacher and the teacher of my eldest son in history. He was taught history by my mother two-thirds of a century ago, so there is a certain family continuity in this respect.

I am very conscious of the importance of this whole area. I have possession of my father's papers on behalf of my brothers and myself. From time to time I have made them accessible to historians when required. I have been in the rather curious position both before, when and after being Minister for Foreign Affairs of making accessible to historians papers which seem to bear in some respect the imprint of the Department of Foreign Affairs while as Minister in that Department I seemed unable to do so in respect of papers which belonged to that Department and were in the Department. So I am very conscious of the importance of making papers accessible. I believe that the diplomatic history of this country in relation to other countries has suffered somewhat from the fact that it has had to be based in large measure on the records of a neighbouring State, Britain, which have become accessible under their 30-year rule. Our own papers have not been accessible, although paradoxically in the period before the 30-year rule applied to the twenties and thirties it was the private collectors of papers here — people like my father — who were the main source of information as subsequently verified from the British papers.

However, be that as it may, we have here a Bill which has a number of important functions to perform. It is our duty in introducing it in this House, and in the other House in due course, to ensure that the Bill is effective in achieving these objectives. I can assure the House that I will welcome any amendments that will help to achieve these objectives. The objectives as I see them are first of all to ensure the preservation of all archival material which is, in the opinion of experts, worth preserving and needs to be preserved; secondly to ensure that this material, unless actually needed by Government Departments, is transferred to the archives; and thirdly, to ensure that, subject to the minimal necessary exceptions, that material is accessible to people who want to use it after 30 years. Even within 30 years such a transfer can be effected in appropriate cases. These are the purposes of the Bill and the tests we have to apply to it. We will be applying at Committee Stage as to whether the provisions of the Bill achieve these objectives.

I will go back over them and take them one by one. In respect of preservation of records I have been deeply concerned over the years at hearing occasionally of destruction of records. I remember, in my teens, being horrified to hear of the destruction by the German Army of the records of the Royal House of Naples. I remember that particularly more than any of the more dreadful things that happened during the war. In this country many papers have been destroyed, which has deprived us of knowledge of our past and which is of great importance in our understanding of ourselves. I have already taken steps, using the authority vested in me by virtue of my office, to instruct that pending the enactment of this Bill no records shall be destroyed unless they have been inspected by the existing Director, Mr. Mac Giolla Choille, and certified as being papers that are not necessary to keep. I would be concerned that nothing should be destroyed until this new system is set up, so they are taking that step already.

With regard to ensuring preservation, this is dealt with in section 7 (4). While I understand Senator Brendan Ryan's feeling about section 8, I am not certain that his concern about officials taking decisions in these matters is really quite relevant to section 7 (4). Section 7 (4) says that papers shall not be destroyed unless it is certified that they are not needed by the official Department concerned and they are papers that do not warrant preservation. That is to be certified by the director of the National Archives. Those are safeguards to ensure that documents are not destroyed. I do not think that there should be much argument about that being the appropriate mechanism or the appropriate way of handling that particular aspect. I am open to contradiction if people think there are better methods of doing it, but as far as section 7 (4) is concerned it is designed to ensure that papers which are in Departments are not destroyed unless these two requirements are met. Once the papers are in the hands of the National Archives then they cannot be destroyed unless the director so proposes, the council agrees and the Minister, to whose Department the papers originally appertained, consents. These are important safeguards which, if taken together, should at least ensure the preservation of records which otherwise might be destroyed.

Regarding the transfer of papers, under sections 81 to 83, it will be obligatory except in one instance, and that is where the papers are in regular use or required for the administration of the Department or in the view of the director they are papers which do not warrant transfer for preservation and can, therefore, be destroyed. I recognise that the interpretation as to whether the "regular use" by, or "required for the administration of a Department" are matters of opinion. It may be that Members of the House may feel that this needs to be looked at more closely to ensure that only papers very genuinely in regular use and genuinely required for the administration of the Department are retained, and not blocks of documents or files which might come in handy some time. If they are only needed sporadically or occasionally or in an unexpected way they could, of course, be retrieved from the archives if they were so needed. The House would want to look at the wording there and see that it is adequate. I have an open mind on that. It may be something we will come to in the Committee Stage. But, basically, the requirement to transfer is quite stringent, subject only to that particular provision.

The other area, which is the most difficult area — and there is no completely satisfactory answer to it — is the obligation to disclose records unless it is certified that for certain specified reasons they should not be made public. Two questions arise here — the criteria for deciding that they should be held back from publication, a decision that must be reviewed every five years under the provisions of the Bill, because there is something contrary to the public interest involving a breach of the statutory duty or good faith and there is a matter of confidence involved in the documents being in the possession of the Department, and distress or danger to someone. At an earlier stage it was suggested to me that the word "embarrassment" should be included. I deleted that from the draft as I thought it should be as stringent as possible. All of us could be embarrassed by thing we did 30 years ago, possibly. I do not think that is an adequate ground for something not being published. If there is actual danger to someone or genuine distress — these are good grounds. Perhaps we should look at these criteria. We have drawn them as tightly as I think is appropriate. There is not much quarrel with them as such. I would be interested to hear what the House has got to say when we come to the relevant section. The question that arises is who is going to decide whether these criteria apply. This has been raised by several Members of the House. The arrangements proposed seem to be most satisfactory. I would be interested to hear what Senators have to say on this subject. Is there to be an obligation to disclose unless a certificate is given by an officer of the Department concerned, cross-checked and confirmed by an officer of the Taoiseach's Department that one or other of these criteria apply? The cross-check system is designed to ensure that there would not be any unnecessary withholding of papers at Departmental level and that there is a cross-check. The fact that the work is to be done by civil servants, that is, officers of the Department rather than the Minister or the Taoiseach himself, I think, is important in this area so that it would be done on a neutral, public administration basis without any political issue coming up.

It may be that in the nature of Irish politics we tend to go back a long time when we are looking for insults to hurl at each other. There may well be things in documents that members of one or the other government might at a particular moment feel that even though they are 30 years old they prefer that they would not appear at a particular moment in time. I do not think that politicians should be deciding this matter. That is why I suggested in the Bill that it should be an officer of the Taoiseach's Department who would handle this aspect and give the certificates. Such an officer would have to give them in accordance with their duties to the State as public servants, certifying to the best of their belief that one or other of these criteria apply without any political input into their decisions. We can come back to that. People may have more to say on it when we come to it. The system has been carefully thought out with a view to making it as stringent as possible.

On the question of the 30-year rule which was raised by Senator Connor, that, in fact, is a fairly universal provision. It was recommended in 1966 by an international conference and is the practice in the great majority of countries. It is very standard practice. While I can understand the historians and, indeed, all of us who are curious about what happened in the past ten or 20 years, might like a shorter period, it has to be accepted that there must be some reasonably long period allowed to elapse. If civil servants were expected to give their views freely to Ministers they will certainly be inhibited from doing so if they feel that those views could be published in a relatively short time. Even in a 30-year period it means that civil servants may find before their retirement that the views which they expressed in a minute when in a more junior position within the civil service may emerge. Even 30 years does not protect them completely from possible embarrassment. If it was less than 30 years there would be problems which could inhibit the civil servants from doing their duty and giving their advice frankly and fully. It is for that reason that it is almost universally agreed that 30 years is the appropriate period for this purpose.

Some technical questions were raised about the conservation of records. This will be a matter for the director with the advice of the council. These are technical issues and ones that I do not think the Bill can deal with. The structure we are setting up is one that should ensure that adequate provision is made for the conservation of records. I am very conscious of the point made by Senator Connor and Senator Fitzsimons that records can be very fragile and their preservation may involve considerable technical skill. It is not a question of simply putting things in boxes and leaving them there.

Several Senators raised the question of the records of public organisations becoming part of the archive only at the request of the organisations concerned and with the consent of the Taoiseach. I understand that people would like everything to be in the national archive, but we have to start somewhere. We are starting with the papers that are in the hands of the State itself, leaving access to others to the archive to put things into it if they want to do so. I do not think that overnight we can nationalise all documents owned by all bodies in the State. The provision that is here is probably the best way to go about it, but again there may be other views expressed during the debate.

The point was made by Senator Connor about private papers. He has the impression that private papers could not be in the national archive, but there is provision in section 4 (1) (e) for the director to accept by way of gift or purchase or loan or otherwise papers that become available. There is no reason why private papers should not be received by the national archive. The Senator raised the point as to whether in such circumstances the papers concerned could remain where they are, as distinct from being put into a central archive in the vicinity of the city of Dublin. I think under the Bill as drafted that might be difficult, but if the point is thought to be of importance it ought to be possible to amend the Bill to take account of the particular point raised by Senator Connor. We can look at that.

Senator Robinson referred to what she described as a measure of voluntarism in the Bill, but she rather "topped and tailed it". She referred to it as section 4 (1) (c) and to section 12 but she skipped over the bits in between, which are very far from voluntary and which include section 7 which indicates that unless they are transferred from the national archives departmental records shall be retained and preserved. Under subsection (4) authorisation to destroy papers shall not be made until certain conditions are complied with. Section 8 states that departmental records shall be transferred unless a certificate is given under section 7. There are very stringent and clear requirements. Section 10 reads:

All archives with the National Archives shall, subject to such regulations as the Taoiseach may from time to time make, be available for public inspection, except —

where a certificate is granted, and so on. In respect of public service organisational records and in respect of matters referred to in section 4 (1) (c) there is a discretionary element in respect of the key and essential elements of the Bill. There is a very clear obligation being imposed in very stringent terms. With regard to the reports of the council, provisions made in the Bill, in accordance with normal practice that they be made available to the House and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, that is the normal provision in Bills of this kind. The question of whether they will be actually published and printed is a discretionary matter. I have not got a strong view on this, but the probability would be that if they were made available they would be published. We can discuss later as to whether it is necessary to make provision for this in the Bill. I am not certain that it is. Senators may have views on it.

On the question of the council, Senator de Brún was anxious that it be broadly based. Senator Eoin Ryan was concerned that over half of the members should be from outside the public service. These are good points and they will be taken into account by me and, I am sure, by other Taoisigh in the nomination of members of the council. Provision is made in respect of four of the members as to how they should be appointed or what their character should be — not less than two members of the Irish Manuscripts Commission and not less than two archivists not employed by the National Archives. That leaves a certain discretion for the remaining seven members. It is certainly not my intention to draw them from the public service although it might be useful to have some people from the public service on the council.

On the question of the role of the director, the point was made by Senator Hillery that it is important that his status should be equivalent to that of the directors of the National Gallery and the National Library; others have made more specific suggestions as to particular grades in the civil service. I would be concerned that what Senator Hillery said should apply; it is important that the status of the director should be equivalent to that of these other bodies. I have taken steps in respect of that already. The director will have very important functions to carry out which are set down in the Bill, not merely in the section dealing with his appointment but also in other parts of the Bill.

The question of staff has been raised by a number of Senators, including Senators Higgins, Bulbulia and Robinson. I am in some difficulty here as I cannot pre-judge an issue of this kind. The question of staffing is something which the director, when appointed, will obviously have views on. Difficulties do arise in a period when there is an embargo. Realistically that creates a problem, but frankly, without going further than this, I have to say that for us to pass this Bill, establish a national archive and require that within two years all these records be handed over to it and not give it additional staff would be to perpetrate an absurdity. It is obvious that steps have to be taken here. I am sure the record of this debate will be read by some of my colleagues such as the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Public Service and that they will take note of what I have said. I cannot go beyond that at the moment. It would pre-empt the issue in detail.

With regard to the question of premises, the Minister of State, in opening the debate, indicated that plans are being prepared in respect of the purpose of this premises. Again, there are always difficulties about saying precisely when money will be available for a particular purpose in advance of the year in respect of which the money should be made available. The indication of intent is there and at present additional accommodation to accommodate the records to be transferred within this two-year period is being looked at by the present director with a view to finding suitable temporary accommodation pending the implementation of the intent with regard to a purpose built premises. He can be assured that there will be supportive assistance for that. I am anxious, as is the House, that when the Bill is passed and these records begin to be transferred there is somewhere appropriate to put them.

With regard to the date of the coming into effect of the Bill which was raised by Senator Robinson, this is a normal provision, and it is my intention that when the Bill is passed by the House it should come into effect at the earliest possible moment. I am not aware of any reason why there should be a delay in respect of this. I should like to proceed with it as soon as possible.

Points were raised on some other matters that are outside the Bill: the control of exports by Senator Robinson and other points about local archives. These are outside the framework of the Bill and they cannot be easily incorporated within it.

In conclusion, I should like to express gratitude to the House for the way in which it received the Bill and for the constructive suggestions made and for the indications already on Second Stage that there will be a lively and very constructive Committee Stage debate. I suspect that I will find myself and Members of the House trying to beat each other to the draw in putting down amendments to meet points that are made. There are already a number of amendments I would like to make in the light of what has been said in the House today and also in the light of submissions that have been made by a number of concerned bodies — the Irish Manuscripts Commission, the Society of Archivists and the Irish Society for Archives. These bodies have made constructive suggestions which provide food for thought, and I am convinced that in taking account of their views and the views of the Members of the House we will improve a Bill, which is a reasonably good one to start with but which, like all Bills, can bear improvement.

I should like to express my gratitude, not only to the civil servants who have worked on the Bill, but also my particular gratitude and the gratitude of the House, to Mr. Breandán Mac Giolla Choille who has carried the burden of looking after the archives that are now under State control, in the most difficult circumstances with inadequate staff and somewhat antiquated premises dating back in some cases to the thirteenth century — well and solidly built by the architects of the day, but nonetheless not entirely suitable. He has done great work and he has laid much of the groundwork for the Bill and for the new national archives which will emerge from the deliberations of the House and the Dáil.

I agree with the Senators who said that this is the right place to introduce the Bill. I was convinced of that from my experience here. A Bill of this kind is likely to get fuller and more constructive and thoughtful consideration in this House, in its first passage through a House of the Oireachtas. It is better if Bills go to the House of the Oireachtas that is likely to give them most attention first and then let the other chamber be the revising chamber in respect of a particular Bill. I am convinced that this Bill will benefit from having been introduced in this House first and from the deliberations on it here.

I look forward to Committee Stage, and I will have amendments of my own to the Bill and Members of the House will have amendments. I am sure that between us we will manage to turn this into a worthwhile piece of legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Next stage?

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 5 June 1985.

Sitting suspended at 5.10 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.