Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
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.
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.
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.
Not attractive? News to me I needed to find attractive jobs, I spent 40 years in jobs I wasnt attracted to, but needs must and people sending me bill’s don’t care that I’m not attracted to the jobs out there! only the last few years I’ve managed to do things for work that attract me. The only things I’ve ever been attracted to were the wife 30 years ago and an old fancy Mazda I bought back in the day, one rusted badly and swore I’d never be attracted to the like again.
@This time its personable!: You’re some hero!
@Luke: I’m full up on badges and medals for not pissing and moaning me
@This time its personable!: What are you talking about? This article isn’t about unemployed people/other workers giving out that the hospitality sector isn’t attractive, it’s about the hospitality sector saying they can’t find workers and being told it’s because people are choosing to work elsewhere. There are plenty of jobs in other sectors that people are choosing to work in at the minute. If hospitality want to attract workers, they need to provide better working conditions.
@This time its personable!: the hotels are to blame themselves why would they listen to guests complain and complain for minimum wage when they can get 12€ an hour stocking shelves in Aldi and guaranteed 40 hours a week unlike seasonal work in hotels
@Karl Harvey: I read the article, I understood what they were saying. And it’s still the same point. Its both sides of the argument pissing and moaning about it, no wonder they can’t attract workers or why some people think they’re better than it. Everyone is entitled aren’t they!
@This time its personable!: well obviously not ‘needs must’ for many people. Things have to change in all areas that i can see where work is seasonal, low paid, high pressure and zero respect for person or rights!!.Thankfully people are copping on and not putting up with it.
@Marie Broomfield: I don’t agree with bullying and harassment and such like, but some people feel they’re not there to work and should be paid for the pleasure of their company, they feel aggrieved if asked to do something. I’m no fireman or surgeon but I known as a bit of a gambler and high pressure in hospitality, come on. Yes you have to rush the odd time but really, high pressure!
@This time its personable!: “Some people” is just another way of saying “people I made up in my head”. I don’t understand why you’d have any problem with workers finally having the power to demand a bit of dignity from their job.
@This time its personable!: i know of one lady who had to be admited to hospital for psychiatric care due to her work pressure and harrassment and another lady who comes home physically and mentally drained and looks 10 years older than she is and yet another lady who works herself to the bone working hours that makes a joke of the Organisation of Working Time Act! It’s not about feeling ‘aggrieved’, or having to rush the odd time, it’s far more serious than that!
@Karl Harvey: it’s not really, you just have to look about in workplaces whether it’s hospitality or not. I’m sure most people can think of examples of me naming random situations. You’re so vehemently against the point, don’t take it personal, we lead different lives and different view points, I wasn’t speaking about you specifically as I’ve never met you.
@Marie Broomfield: well those situations sound horrible for all involved. Not making light of them at all and me continuing to make any points on this wouldn’t be appropriate.
Second highest minimum wage but yet people can’t survive the cost of living
@Tom Bombdadil: or afford to rent or buy a simple home…..
As a worker in the hospitality sector for many years, we used to have no issue finding staff compared to nowadays we simply can’t find enough due to low wages for a lot of work. Sad to see as we have endless opportunities with this sector!
When did minimum wage mean you could live off it? All my life it was a secondary wage.
@This time its personable!: “Some people” is just people you’ve made up in your head. You should just be happy workers finally have the power to demand a bit of dignity at work and go about your day.
If you treat your staff like they’re not essential with zero hour contracts and low pay then you deserve all you get.
have your say