TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 5 °C Friday 24 May, 2013

Column: It’s time to scrap the 30-year rule on State documents

Slashing the time these crucial records stay secret would help the cause for transparency, writes Labour TD Anne Ferris.

Anne Ferris

NOVEMBER TIME THIRTY years ago, the 23rd Government was coming to an end. The third General Election in the space of 18 months was about to take place. Haughey, Fitzgerald and Spring fought over differing policies and promises, with the latter two leaders ultimately offering a platform for five years of stable government. This was a turbulent time then. We live in similar times now, and I believe that those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. This is where I believe the National Archives and the 30-year rule have an important role to play.

The National Archives are set to make public previously unreleased State Papers from 1982. The 30-year rule on the release of State Papers allows for this. The documents will likely reveal a much greater insight into our past, into the turbulent times of 1982, and how our Government viewed events back then. As an advocate of transparent government, as someone who believes that our shared history informs our present circumstances, I think that 30 years is too long to wait. I know I am not alone in that view.

Limitations

The general trend, with countries which have similar restrictions as Ireland, is to loosen the limitation periods. Indeed the UK is the most recent country to have done so. I do realise that a balance needs to be struck between the confidentiality that is needed for good governance and that of renouncing unnecessary secrecy. I do not think the 30-year rule strikes that balance appropriately.

With that in mind I introduced a Bill, the National Archives (Amendment) Bill 2012, with a view to reforming this archaic rule. The Bill seeks to halve the period of time, from 30 to 15, so that state records can be transferred sooner to the public domain. This time period was also the one recommended by an independent review body in the UK. The safeguards on maintaining confidentiality would still stand. These are already outlined in the National Archives Act 1986 and allow that records will not be released if they are; required or in regular use by a Department; would be contrary to the public interest; constitute a breach of statutory duty or breach of good faith; or if they cause distress or danger to living persons.

Positive step

I think, then, that this move would be a positive step in the direction of transparent government. I think too that given the move by the UK to release its papers at an earlier date, it would be beneficial to do likewise, so that a fuller picture of Anglo-Irish relations can be presented. However, I am aware that the National Archives are struggling with the resources they have at present. I also visited the National Archives on Bishop Street and saw for myself the work that was being carried out to preserve records in varying states of disrepair. The amount of work that goes into ensuring the transfer into the public record of appropriate, and relevant State Papers to meet the 30-year rule is quite significant. I know that achieving this deadline every year requires resources that are being pushed to their limit.

I also know that there are concerns at the lack of an adequate digital repository to meet the needs of a modern society where increasingly less paper records are kept. I think the Department of Arts needs to do more to provide these adequate resources. The National Archives is under-staffed and struggles for space. I worry about the approach the Department is taking to our cultural bodies, I worry that the mandarins there have too much control, that power is too centralised. I am concerned that in a push to ‘gain efficiencies’ we’ll do lasting damage to our heritage.

At about this time, ninety years ago, an explosion and consuming fire destroyed much of our history when the Public Record Office was destroyed in the Battle of Dublin at the outset of the Civil War. As a nation we lost so much of our shared past, our society, as it then was. It is within the interest of the public that our past is documented, preserved and made accessible for future generations. We should adequately support the work that our cultural bodies carry out, including the National Archives – it is the responsible and right thing to do.

Anne Ferris is  a Labour Party TD in Wicklow and East Carlow. Last month, Deputy Anne Ferris asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Jimmy Deenihan, that the number of State papers, older than 30 years, that have not been released as a result of exceptions to the 30 year rule, if he would provide a breakdown by year for department and agency. Deputy Deenihan said he does not have statutory responsibility for the withholding of official records over 30 years, and this lies with each Department under the National Archives Act 1986.

Read: Ireland failing to tackle corruption, claims report>

Column: Corruption has played a starring role in Ireland’s economic crisis>

Read next:

Comments (24 Comments)

  • I have lost count the amount of times-I have seen a file in Bishop St, PRONI or Kew which has a interesting description only to get it and find 80% of it redacted. This is where a researcher’s hart sinks and usually five mins of despair usually follows.

    However when we look at files today-we do see alot of interesting information tendered by civil servants, politicians etc. They give it largely because they know it will be locked away for 30 years and most will likely be dead when it is released. If you lower the 30 yr rule, you just run the risk just creating a situation of government by post-it notes-where we eventually find out nothing.

    Also the Nat Archives are unlikely to release anything sensitive over a person that is still alive.

    Reply
  • As an historian, I think this is a fantastic idea. There’s nothing more frustrating than a visit to an archive when the rule is in place.

    Reply
  • If it was reduced to 10 years I believe it would keep politicians honest as they would for the most part be alive to answer questions about their behaviour in office.

    Reply
    • IF it was reduced to 10 years, even more things would be done over a late night drink with a nod and a wink with no papertrail. Or there would be a huge increase in the amount of shredders requistioned by government departments and the only thing left for the archives would be an empty file with a dead moth inside. It will be interesting to see how the advent of digital media such as emails and electronics such as shredders will impact on the quantity of information in the file releases going into the future?

      Reply
  • Anne makes a good point there. I mean if there wasn’t this rule, things that were said or done at the time might not be popular, but in the fulfillness of time, they will be viewed as a good thing. Take for example Margaret Thatcher’s handling of the Falklands War, I’m not sure what the view was of her back then but now, 30 years on, she handled that war like a true leader, unwavering in her support to the troops but also stood firm with France and the Argentinian government. I have little time for that woman but her performance back then was fantastic.. Even though it pains me to say it.

    Ultimately my point is that certain things are best kept for some years rather than rushed out, the electorate are a fickle bunch and usually cannot see past 2 or 3 years.

    Reply
    • you don’t seem to have much date in the “electorate”

      Reply
    • sorry should say “fate” not date-
      predictive text strikes again.

      Reply
    • History would suggest that we are a fickle bunch. Too much self interest and only looking after your own, rather than the Interest of the whole country.

      Reply
    • i don’t think your giving people enough credit and underestimating their capacity to think for themselves. i am insulted by your generalization of peoples ability to comprehend what happens in the world around them.

      Reply
    • You should have said “faith”

      Reply
    • @Mick Look at the history of the Irish electorate (or indeed any country). Short term benefits always trump the long term good. Our voting patterns and the policies shaped by those in Government and Opposition during the 90s, 2000s highlight that.

      For example, if a government between 2000 and 2006 had suggested making cuts, saving money etc do you think they would have been popular? I seem to remember much complaining about “wasted opportunities” after every one of those giveaway budgets. I don’t think a party trying to bring common sense to the property market and the economy in general would have been rewarded in an election.

      Reply
    • The article refers to how shortening the time to release these documents would allow for a more transparent government. Have a 30 years waiting period is giving our politicians a get out of jail free card around accountability. I generally have no “faith” in any politician or party as they are usually egotistical and say one thing and then do another. Allowing more transparency will either justify their actions or make them accountable for them. People deserve to know the truth.

      Reply
    • Jingles 28/12/12 #

      Faith?

      Reply
    • at jingles. commas refers to my previous inability to “spell” faith- i chalk it down to my current state of manflu.

      Reply
    • @Mick I’m sure if you were replying to my post or not. I fully agree with the article and would support them being released after 15 years. I didn’t say otherwise. My issue is with your belief that the electorate will always make the correct decision. They won’t. They will make self serving decisions.

      Reply
    • @garry. part of the problem is we have a useless choice in political parties that lie or compromise their beliefs once in power. people can only make informed choices with all the facts.

      Reply
    • The entire history of democratic elections is full of short sighted, self serving decisions by electorates. People will vote for the party that promises them the most.

      Populism has not and will not change.

      Can you honestly tell me that the Irish electorate would have voted differently over the past 10-15 years? People already were in possession of facts from bodies like the ESRI and all manner of reports existed predicting a downturn. A housing crash was predicted by leading economists. Instead they voted for a man that said the boom would “get boomer”. This isn’t an anti Fianna Fail rant either. They were just giving the public the policies they wanted. Fine Gael, Labour etc made the same populist declarations prior to the election. If a political party in Ireland pledged to follow the leading economists and implement cautious budgets, they simply would not have been elected.

      Reply
    • A shorter example of the decision making of the Irish electorate is to look at the career of Michael Lowry.

      Reply
  • the FF GREEN goverment will still have nothing to worry about when it comes to the night of the blanket guarantee to the banks in 25 years because there is not a screed of evidence any where to found in our alleged goverment institutions as to what happened, as to our current form of dictators fat chance they will have a real investigation in to what happened

    Reply
  • Question. Would we have to wait thirtty years to get an answer?

    Reply
  • I have lost count the amount of times-I have seen a file in Bishop St, PRONI or Kew which has a interesting description only to get it and find 80% of it redacted. This is where a researcher’s haert sinks and five mins of despair usually follows.

    However when we look at files today-we do see alot of interesting information tendered by civil servants, politicians etc. They give it largely because they know it will be locked away for 30 years and most will likely be dead when it is released. If you lower the 30 yr rule, you just run the risk just creating a situation of government by post-it notes-where we eventually find out nothing.

    Also the Nat Archives are unlikely to release anything sensitive over a person that is still alive.

    Reply
  • Think about the number of politicians and their cronies who are criminals. We know the scale that encompasses. Now count the number who have seen the inside of a prison cell.
    Any more questions?

    Reply
  • To take just one specific example, the 30 year revelation has been illuminating in relation to how such a pernicious Constitutional provision, Article 40.3.3′, the infamous Eight Amendment, came to be proposed as a Referendum wording. Had the full facts been known much earlier, it is possible that Article 40.3.3 would have been repealed.

    We can now see exactly how the pro-life lobby foisted a life threatening Constitutional provision on the nation, with the strident support of the Roman Catholic Church, despite the reservationsand strongly opposed views of three Attorneys General.

    We also see how Charles Haughey suppressed the opinion of Peter Sutherland.

    The papers reveal how back in 1982’ Ireland was an RC dominated society. I look forward to seeing the 1983 papers late next year but it is a real tragedy that we will not see these papers for another year.

    Reply
  • I would have thought that there are more serious matters for you to worry about Anne ? Anyway the concepts of freedom of information and the 30 year rule are conflicting at all times …open government …bah humbug !

    Reply

Add New Comment