Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

National Archives

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 19 May 2010

Wednesday, 19 May 2010

Ceisteanna (12, 13)

Kieran O'Donnell

Ceist:

42 Deputy Kieran O’Donnell asked the Minister for Tourism; Culture and Sport the measures planned to address the storage difficulties of the National Archives; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20616/10]

Amharc ar fhreagra

James Reilly

Ceist:

43 Deputy James Reilly asked the Minister for Tourism; Culture and Sport if she intends to convene the National Archives Advisory Council; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20672/10]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (13 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 42 and 43 le chéile.

The storage difficulties at the National Archives are widely acknowledged. A permanent solution would be a new storage building, but in the current economic climate it will not be possible to set aside the necessary resources to construct a new building. However, I am concerned that the best possible use should be made of the accommodation that is currently available to the National Archives. There is a large warehouse behind the National Archives' Bishop Street offices in which many archives are being stored. Unfortunately, the roof of the warehouse is of poor quality. As a result, many of the records have to be stored in waterproof plastic bales to protect them from damage and are not readily accessible to the public. The other main National Archives record store is located within the Four Courts complex, which makes retrieval difficult and relatively expensive.

My Department has requested the OPW to fit out new storage space within the Bishop Street building. This space was recently vacated by the Land Commission. This work is currently underway. My Department has also asked the OPW to draw up a short to medium-term plan to improve the overall amount of useable storage space in the Bishop Street warehouse, and this is being drawn up. In addition, the OPW has already provided some off-site storage accommodation for certain series of archives. While it is not ideal to have archives dispersed, the combination of measures being taken at the moment should relieve the situation in the short to medium-term for the National Archives. Notwithstanding the reduced allocation to my Department's capital programme, I have asked my officials to ensure that the OPW monitors the potential suitability for the National Archives of any properties that become available.

The National Archives Advisory Council derives its legal existence under section 20 of the National Archives Act 1986, "to advise him [the Minister] in the exercise of his powers under this Act, and on all matters affecting archives and their use by the public, and to discharge the other functions conferred on it by this Act". The council was first established in January 1987. Under the Local Government Act 1994 and the Harbours Act 1996, the council may also advise the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources on any matters affecting local archives and harbour archives respectively.

The council may not meet at present as, unfortunately, there are a number of vacancies that fall to be filled, including that of the chairman, which is a statutory requirement. I am currently considering reconstituting the council and I intend to bring this to a conclusion at an early date.

I will deal with the storage matter first. No Minister could be other than ashamed for the treatment our National Archives has received over the years. It is a disgrace. It is our written history, yet it is being stored on inaccessible pallets with the rain pouring down on. In addition, we do not even know what is in there because it cannot be accessed. What is happening now is a sticking plaster job and, welcome as it is, it will not solve the problem in any way. There is no humidity control or access. It is a waste of the staff's time running up and down to the Four Courts to obtain material. There is no space for conservation and while good work is being done by the staff it is being done in a corridor. It is outrageous. The tragedy is that even though they have a statutory responsibility to take State papers, the staff cannot take them from many Departments. Therefore, Departments are holding archival material in God knows what sort of conditions.

The Minister has a capital budget, so this matter should be a priority. The Minister says things are bad now, but when things were good it was not considered a priority either. It is far more important than giving out lottery grants. This is our written history and we have a responsibility to do something about it.

Will the Minister give a commitment to make this matter a priority? This is the most important capital project because if it goes, it cannot be replaced. We lost so much of our archives in 1922 and therefore we must save the existing material. That is not to mention local authority, hospital and other archives, which are mouldering away due to lack of attention.

As a minor historian, I would be very sympathetic towards trying to preserve the National Archives. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, has told me what a wonderful reading room there is there. He shares with me the value of protecting such material, given that we saw the loss of so much in 1922. The latter material can never be retrieved. I accept there is a responsibility on us but, on the other hand, an estimate for a new building in 2006 was put at €120 million. That kind of money is not there at the moment, but I do accept a responsibility for protecting the documents we have through basic work such as repairing roof leaks. Our National Archives must be preserved for future generations. In so far as possible, I will try to ensure that we will protect what is already there.

The sum of €120 million would be a lot less now, so perhaps the Minister could obtain a new estimate.

The other question concerns the National Archives Advisory Council, which is a statutory body. It has not been appointed and went out of existence at least two years ago. I presume the reason it has not been appointed is due to the proposed changes to amalgamate the National Archives with the National Library. The National Archives, as currently constituted, is under threat so this is the very time the Minister needs a council to advise her. Will the Minister appoint the advisory council now? Has she had any second thoughts about amalgamating the National Archives and the National Library? I would urge her to have such second thoughts. It is not a statutory obligation and the functions of both bodies are very different. No cost benefit analysis was done on the amalgamation. As far as I can gather, the former Minister, Martin Cullen, was asked to come up with a few money-saving devices. He thought this might save money, but there is no rationale for it. There is no proof whatsoever that it will save money, but money must be spent on the National Archives.

Will the Minister appoint the advisory council? Before proceeding any further with the amalgamation, will she undertake a full cost-benefit analysis? In addition, she should read the report produced when this amalgamation was first considered 20 years ago. A full report was done at that time, although no such report was done on this occasion. Will the Minister read that report and examine the arguments for maintaining the National Archives as they are?

I am greatly inclined towards appointing a new council because I believe much guidance is needed regarding the deposition of archives, as well as their conservation and management. At present, I envisage such a development in the context of working towards a management merger. This simply pertains to management in order that back-office services and technology in particular can be shared. The enormous public interest in the National Archives in recent years has been focused on the 1911 census and, from next month, will be on the census of 1901. Even before its formal launch in the United States or elsewhere, a total of 240 million people have accessed the website to look at the census.

The use of digital technology will be a major feature of archives in the future and is a major feature of the National Library. Consequently, it makes a great deal of sense to combine efforts in this regard and to have a common focus. It makes a great deal of sense for them to collaborate on their back-office systems. However, I am absolutely satisfied that whatever processes and procedures are put in place will ensure the existence of two separate bodies with two independent directors and two separate roles. Moreover, these roles and the services provided will not change. This proposal is to ensure that such services are improved and that best use can be made of the facilities that would be available for both. However, my aim will be to appoint a council to work towards and to advise on this issue to protect the archives.

What consultations did the Minister have with what one might call the experts in the area from both the National Archives and the National Library? I would have thought the functions of each are quite separate. While the Minister identified some common ground, the functions of each institution are highly distinct. Certainly, the experts perceive no real purpose in combining them. To take up on the point regarding cost-benefit analysis, it is difficult to envisage what would be the overall savings, were this simply meant to be a cost saving exercise.

As a separate issue, does the Minister agree it would be more appropriate to have a 15-year rule, rather than a 30-year rule? While I appreciate this would generate the need for more space, I believe that 15 years now appears to be an adequate length of time and the records should be available within that period.

One could have a debate on that issue for a long time. I believe the freedom of information legislation probably has changed thinking in that regard because that Act allows one to have immediate access to decisions, policies and the backgrounds thereto. It then means that under the 30-year rule, one is holding for the fullness of time. While this is the first time I have considered this proposal, even thinking out loud I would have thought that all the papers on Northern Ireland, for example, probably were best kept for 30 years, rather than 15 years, because while we were in the middle of peacekeeping talks and discussions, it might not have been helpful for people to have read into them. However, such papers now can be considered retrospectively from the perspective of the historian. Consequently, I believe freedom of information legislation should be used for an immediate understanding of government and governance, while the 30-year rule is for historians. These are my initial thoughts on the subject but I have not really thought it through. I would be interested to hear the opinions of my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, because I am sure he has live views in this regard.

I accept fully that the National Archives and the National Library are two different creatures, both of which are highly valuable. However, that does not preclude co-operation to make best use of what we have. Members have just been talking about capital expenditure for the National Archives, which has not taken place for a number of years. However, I do not want either me or someone else to state in this Chamber in a few years' time that although the money was available for the technology for one institution, it was not available for the other. One must take advantage of changing times and changing technology and must use it to the benefit but not to the detriment of both.

Deputy Mitchell, in a final question.

The Minister is doing what she does very well, which is raising a red herring. Shared services are a great idea and I am absolutely in favour of them. The Minister has 13 bodies under her remit and I have tabled another question on this point asking why they all do not share services. However, the point is that the National Archives is not a body under the Minister's remit but is within her Department and my objection is to changing that structure. While I have no difficulty with sharing services, merging the National Archives with a State body that shares very few of its functions constitutes a major change, as about all they hold in common is that both involve written records. I urge the Minister to undertake some form of cost-benefit analysis on the proposed merger before taking this path because there is no rationale for it. Moreover, no papers have been produced under freedom of information legislation to demonstrate there is any reason to do this or that anyone will benefit. I acknowledge the sharing of services should be done by everyone.

An t-Aire, in a final reply.

I understand there will be a similar type of issue in respect of the Irish Manuscripts Commission and the National Library.

This is not necessarily even being considered from a cost-benefit perspective. In my last position as Minister for Social and Family Affairs, MABS and the Citizens Information Board came together under a single body and management and yet both are maintaining highly distinct identities, which also is what I envisage happening in this regard. I hope to re-establish the council and to be able to benefit from its expertise. I will be happy to take any suggestions the Deputies might have regarding those whom they consider might make a good input.

Barr
Roinn