Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)

It is my honour to second this motion, initiated by our independent group. I wholeheartedly endorse everything my colleague, Senator Mac Conghaíl has said.

I come to the motion from a different point of reference. In recent years, I have developed a keen interest in researching my ancestry. Through this hobby, I have had the pleasure of using the National Archives of Ireland, the National Library of Ireland and the genealogical records put online by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

In preparing to second the motion I did my own research, so it was with surprise that I read the contents of the Government amendment. The Government "notes the extensive consultation undertaken" by the Minister. I found it extremely difficult to find evidence of this consultation and can only conclude that it happened behind closed doors. This is regrettable. We are talking about our national culture and our national cultural institutions. We all have ownership of them and any proposals in their regard surely warrant an open, transparent and inclusive consultation process. An example of such a process is included in our motion but it has not been taken up in the Government counter-motion.

There is a feeling of déjÀ vu in the air. In his budget speech of 2008, the then Minister for Finance, the late Deputy Brian Lenihan, announced that the Government had decided to proceed with a wide range of amalgamations of State agencies, including the merger of the National Library of Ireland, the National Archives of Ireland and the Irish Manuscripts Commission. The proposal was subsequently dropped. This self-same action was included in the Government's public service reform plan, published last November, which stated: "Merge National Archives and the Irish Manuscripts Commission into the National Library while maintaining separate identities." Yesterday in the Dáil, the Minister said he was considering a range of options for the National Museum of Ireland and the National Library of Ireland, including streamlining and moving some support functions back into his Department.

From my reading, a merger is proposed but the institutions will all keep their own identities. Lest we forget, eight years, between 1997 and 2005, were spent moving the library out of the Department, including transferring staff from the Civil Service to the public service, and now we are talking about moving some of them back in again. I have often heard of moving deckchairs on the Titanic. This really sums that up.

From my experience and research, the roles and functions of these State agencies are completely distinct. I am focusing my intervention on the National Archives of Ireland, which is situated within the Minister's Department, with statutory independence. The National Archives of Ireland is legally charged under the National Archives Act 1986, and the significance and importance of its functions in the interests of democracy, transparency, truth and justice cannot be overstated. We know how essential court and other archival records are to clarifying the State interaction with the Magdalene laundries and to other bodies of inquiry and redress. As we enter a decade of sensitive commemorations, how we understand our history is critical, and I am well aware that the absence of factual material can often distort it.

From my experience of researching my own family history, I knew the story of how my great-aunt fled Ireland with her two year old child in 1929, abandoning her husband and her ancestral home in County Clare. By researching in the National Archives of Ireland, I found District Court records of how my great-aunt tried, on several occasions, to seek the court's protection from her husband, who assaulted and abused her. When she could not get remedy from the court, she was left with no alternative but to escape to England. When I shared this with her daughter, who is now in her 80s, I cannot put a price on the relief, understanding and closure these archival records provided. To understand and interpret our history appropriately we need to ensure that our archival material is properly stored and easily accessed.

I cannot stress enough the link between transparency, justice and proper record keeping. No one in this Chamber needs to be reminded of the serious, and in some cases fatal, consequences of our historically poor record keeping. Only last week, we received the report of the independent child death review group. Other reports, such as the McEntee and Barron reports into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, illustrated the failure to keep adequate records. In years to come, when historians try to understand decisions taken today and in recent years in matters such as planning, where will the records be? Who will be preserving them? What are we doing to review the National Archives Act and to address its deficiencies, such as records of State agencies and electronic records? I am genuinely concerned. No doubt the Minister will confirm the value he places on the National Archives, but I am saddened to see that the evidence is to the contrary. The financial allocations to the National Archives between 2005 and 2011 showed a dramatic reduction in funding which is now back at 2005 levels. The Minister is well aware of the concerns expressed about storage, access, humidity control and conservation at Bishop Street, despite the best efforts of staff. The National Archives has a staff of 47, of which 14 are archivists. In addition, there are six vacancies due to the moratorium, two of which are for archivists. There is also the critical position of director. I note that in many countries of similar size with a comparable volume of records the staffing levels far outnumber ours. For example, the National Archives of Scotland has 160 members of staff, of whom approximately half are archivists, while at the Danish National Archives there are 261 members of staff, of whom approximately 88 are archivists. I also look with envy at the completion of the PRONI building in Belfast which was delivered on time and under budget last year. I note its location in the Titanic quarter of Belfast and the clear link drawn with culture and tourism. Instead of moving deckchairs, should we be discussing our vision for protecting our cultural heritage?

This Saturday, 30 June, marks the 90th anniversary of the destruction of the public records office in the Four Courts. On that fateful day 1,000 years of Irish cultural history literally went up in smoke and vanished without trace, yet to the surprise of many, given the financial position at the foundation of the Irish Free State, one of the first acts of the new Government was to rebuild the public records office. What clearer signal could there be of the priority given to our cultural heritage in the 1920s? If the proposed merger is to succeed as set out and the consequences are as many as I fear, I wonder how kindly historians in 90 years time will review our decisions today. I ask my colleagues to stand and be counted and let the record show that they supported the motion.