Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Decisions we make today can have implications for how our history will be told into the future. How that will manifest itself is unpredictable. Many records are now held digitally and have been for the past 20 years or so. As the formats in which records are held sometimes become obsolete, we are faced with many additional challenges that we have to overcome.

I will reiterate some of the points made by the previous speaker about some aspects of the Bill. In section 2 the term "relevant records" is introduced. "Relevant records" are defined as records more than 20 years old but less than 30 years old where an order has been made. Other than that, it does not give a clear definition of what the records are. That is very important. Section 2 of the 1986 Act states all of the different formats in which departmental records can be kept and that will remain. However, there is no clear direction as to who will decide what is a relevant record, aside from it being 20 years old as opposed to 30. The current legislation is easy to implement as it encompasses all records created, regardless of age. They are transferred to the National Archives when they are 30 years old. Relevant records are a subset of departmental records as defined under 1986 Act..

The Bill does not refer to the existing scheduled bodies. Does this mean that they are outside the scope of the legislation? What will happen to their records? Is the Government relying on the 1986 Act in that regard? Will that Act be superceded?

The transfer of records to the National Archives will be made by ministerial order following consultation with the director of the National Archives. This removes the power of the director to appraise records and decide whether they should be retained or disposed of. There are many records and it is a question of a good archivist being able to decide which ones are relevant. Directors are civil servants and should have no political allegiances or agendas. They should make impartial appraisal decisions based on the evidence provided for them. In making this change we are potentially politicising access to public records which would be contrary to the spirit of openness and transparency. The Minister will now have the power to make an order for transfer if records are of significant historical or public interest to warrant their transfer. Who will decide what records are of significant historical or public interest? Who will advise the Minister in making that decision?

The Government currently does not get involved in the selection or appraisal of records for transfer. That work is carried out by civil servants who carry out their obligations under the 30 year rule as set out in the 1986 Act. There is a danger that selective appraisal will take place based on individual interests or bias. That is quite dangerous. The same clause states: "The transfer of the records concerned to the National Archives will facilitate the balanced and fair reporting of matters of common interest to the State and other jurisdictions".

That is a clear statement that the 20 year rule is to facilitate the release of records relating to Northern Ireland to balance out the release of information from the United Kingdom. The Bill includes the provision that transfers of records less than 30 years old, but more than 20 years old, by ministerial order will have to be voted on by the Houses of the Oireachtas. This has the potential to politicise the designation and transfer of public records. These are serious issues for the future.

There is no set date in the Bill for the transfer of records. The 30 year rule automatically means all 30 year old records have to be transferred, if records over 20 years old are not put forward for appraisal, when will they be transferred to the National Archives? The Bill states the transfer of records will occur when "arrangements for the transfer of all Departmental records which are more than 20 years old to the National Archives are adequate." There is major work going on in the building. I have looked for that for a long time and welcomed its announcement. I have been there to see how it is proceeding. It is a big warehouse. The last time I asked about cataloguing of records there were approximately 70,000 boxes that were not catalogued. That was a few years ago. There will always be a challenge in that respect. It could mean that older records are put even further back. It is all very well saying we have them but getting them and being able to select the ones we want to look at is very challenging when they are not catalogued. What does the Bill mean by "adequate"? Who makes the assessment and judgment that the situation is "adequate" and the transfer can take place?

The Bill does state the decision to review the status of closed records, or records which are not deemed "relevant records" and subject to transfer, will take place but it does not say when. The current legislation states this review will happen every five years.

Section 10(6) of the 1986 Act which allows a Minister to transfer records less than 30 years old is being removed. The existence of this clause would allow a 20 year rule to be implemented without changing the current Act. Is this section being removed so that individual Ministers cannot take decisions which would conflict with those of the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht? The Taoiseach will have the power to amend or revoke an order designating records as "relevant records", but no criteria for this decision are given. That needs to happen.

Reading the Bill it appears that there will be no sanctions against Departments if they do not transfer records. While no sanctions are currently imposed on Departments or agencies of State if they have not transferred records more than 30 years old, they are aware that they are in breach of the legislation and can face public criticism for this. There is an expectation that 30 year old records are transferred. We should hear something from the Minister on that issue. We believe the current drafting of the Bill introduces uncertainty into many of the functions carried out by the National Archives at present and leaves open the possibility of the politicisation of decisions in the selection of records for permanent preservation.

If we spend money now, we can save later. If there are enough people in the National Archives who can whittle down the records to the key ones that are appropriate to retain, we would reduce storage costs and the cost of digitisation. It would make a lot of sense to invest in staff for cataloguing. There are probably more than 70,000 boxes that have not been catalogued.

Catriona Crowe, the former director of the National Archives, is speaking on this issue in Maynooth tonight. She wants to open the administrative records of the mother and baby homes, industrial schools and Magdalen laundries for journalists and scholars. The records can be anonymised when digitised and only people who need to see the individual record or have a personal interest in it can see it. We all know people struggling to find material on themselves. That should be taken on board as a matter of goodwill. The historical adoption records held by Tusla need to be digitised and catalogued as a matter of urgency. They are very personal and it has to be made simpler for people to find records.

I was in the National Archives recently. The work has some way to go to conclude. When we compare them with the new Public Record Office of Northern Ireland or the National Archives (Public Records Office) in Kew in England, we realise the risk we have taken until now with the records held by the State. That work cannot happen quickly enough because the records are at risk of damage by fire or water. It is important that work is moving towards its conclusion. There should be no spoiling the ship for a ha'pworth of tar. We must make sure the records in the National Archives are protected from fire and water.

See this speech in context