NATIONAL TRANSPORT RECORD OFFICE (Hansard, 2 March 1970)

§ Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)
I am grateful for the opportunity, somewhat delayed by my own activities, to raise the question of the need for a national transport record archive in the Metropolis. The matter arises because of the partial decision by the Government to move the British Railways record office out of London to York. In no sense do I wish more to discuss the museum. I address myself simply to the keeping of the records of the transport industries, which records are now, as the House knows, housed in Porchester Road.
The proposal has caused considerable apprehension amongst all who use record offices and who are experienced in this sphere; so much so, that a delegation went to see the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science last week. The first thing I want to do is to thank the right hon. Lady for receiving the members of that delegation, and for courteously allowing them to put their 225 points of view. I am sure that she will agree that it was a most distinguished delegation, with the one exception of myself.
The members of the delegation were all deeply involved in actual record work, and were representative of the very large minority—indeed, as far as I know, of the entire profession of archivists and record officers and historians of all sorts who use the records, and who feel that a decision to move this collection out of London to York is wrong. I am a member of the advisory committee of the Public Record Office and also of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. Although I do not speak for those bodies officially, I claim in what I say now to represent the very great majority of those whose business it is to deal with records, and who have to search through them for the information they require.
The British Railways collection is of national and international importance. We were the inventors of railways, and the records of the building of our railways are unique, and are acknowledged throughout the world to be a superb collection of documents. But although they are unique and important, they are for specialists only.
The documents are not of interest to the general public. There is, I suppose the occasional person who develops an interest in the subject, but the documents are not matters for tourists and school children, or the public at large. Indeed, they are probably important only to a very small minority of people consisting to some extent of officials and students but, in the main, of historians and serious students of our Industrial Revolution. It is, therefore, quite wrong to think of the records as though they were in some way an attraction or a magnet to people to come to any city where they might be placed.
As I say, the records are at present housed at Porchester Road in Paddington. That will be a satisfactory home for a few more years, but we all know that it is not a good place for a records office, and that British Railways would like to get the premises back. In due course, British Railways will get the building back, but it is agreed that it is not a suitable permanent house for the records. On the other hand, wherever 226 the new record office may be built, the building will certainly take five or ten years. That time allows us to find the right solution as to where it should be.
In arguing that the records office should stay in the Metropolis, I am not arguing against York or in any way derogating York or any other place where it might be sent. I am a Notherner myself, from far further north than York, and I would have a prejudice in favour of the North if I felt that that was at stake. It is not as if we are handing out plums here, however. We are dealing with an integral part of the national collection of archives. We have the Public Record Office, the Royal Commission for Historical Manuscripts, the British Museum, the G.L.C. archives at Dartford Street and many other sources of documents, all of them situated in London.
If one part of this collection is removed a distance of 200 miles, it means that those whose job it is to do research are seriously inconvenienced by having to go a great distance. It is not as if one studied one class of records exclusively. A study of the 19th century or the Industrial Revolution before it might lead one to wander from one records office to another and perhaps visit four or five different batches of records in a week. If one of these offices is 200 miles away, it means that great inconvenience is caused to the searcher.
I know that the right hon. Lady has suggested that there should be a telephone service for giving quick answers to the people who want to find out facts about the transport archives if they go to York. But that is not really the case. The case which must be met is that of the serious student who browses through documents and has to find out all sorts of things and, indeed, does not know exactly what he wants to find before he goes to seek it. Although some people may be able to take advantage of the telephone service to be installed, for the serious student it is not enough for him to be able to ring up York. He will need to go there and look through the archives to find what he wants.
All the records of the Government should be treated the same. They are all really part of the same collection and, indeed, a lot of the records which the State keeps at its own expense are 227 privately-owned documents such as those kept by the Royal Commission for Historical Manuscripts in Chancery Lane. Where one has State industries, there can be no doubt that the keeping of their records is a State responsibility. Indeed, the Acts allow the nationalised industries to opt to have their records made into public records and therefore taken over by the Public Record Office, but of the nationalised industries only the National Coal Board has so opted. Its records are now kept by the Public Records Office.
It seems to me right that the other nationalised industries should also have their records accepted as a charge upon the State. It does not really matter whether they are paid for by the nationalised industries or by the State, but the guardianship of the records is much better entrusted to those who are skilled and knowledgeable about how to look after them rather than left to the nationalised industries themselves.
That is why I believe that we need either a nationalised industry transport record office or a transport record office for the whole of the collection of transport records, which includes the railways, waterways, the Freight Corporation, in due course, London Transport and the National Bus Company, also in due course.
A new building is being put up for the Public Record Office in Ruskin Avenue, Kew, where the Government have about 20 acres of land and will use five acres for the purpose at a cost of from £3 million to £4 million.
There is much to be said for keeping the records of the transport industries, and perhaps of all the nationalised industries, there. There is plenty of room and it would be perfectly possible at minimal cost to add a wing or an addition to the planned building, which has not yet been designed, to accommodate an extra amount of records for the industries concerned. It would be necessary to make the records the responsibility of the Public Records Office to do that, but there is no difficulty and no reason why that should not be done.
I should not like to prejudge what the right answer is, but there is here a great opportunity either to build a nationalised transport record office at Kew, or to 0228 extend the Public Record Office building which is to be put there so that it can take over these important and valuable records. All the records would then be in London and looked after by the same staff and be available to all the people who make it their regular business to search through our historical past and to find what details they want. There are common facilities there—a common restraurant to be built, common staff and common facilities for copying, for micro filming and preservation. All these things would reduce the general cost of storing the records all together.
It may be a bore to have to provide legislation and it may upset plans already made, but in view of the unanimous opinion of the profession—and I think that I am not using too strong a phrase in saying that—and the weighty arguments and the strong opposition which the right hon. Lady has met to this proposal, I am sure that she would like to consider the scheme again.
She has an opportunity here to show a vision of the future. If we can make a complex at Kew to record all the aspects of the past in one area, we shall be doing something tremendously imaginative and future looking. The hon. Lady's proposal to do that would be welcomed by all in the present and she would be thanked by all in future for her far sightedness.
I know that it is difficult for her to make a decision tonight, because these are matters which she will want to consider, and I do not propose to press the issue tonight. But she will almost certainly be making a mistake which will be regretted by all those who have to work in the records business if she insists on the records going to York, because the connection is not between the museum and the records, but the various record offices, all the rest of which are dotted about London.

§ Mr. H. P. G. Channon (Southend, West)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the right hon. Lady for giving me one or two minutes in which to support my hon. Friend. Tonight we are not discussing the future of the Clapham Transport Museum and the future of the railway relics, a subject 229 which has aroused differing and passionately held views and which the House may discuss on another occasion. Tonight we are discussing the limited but vital question of the railway records which are, as my hon. Friend wisely pointed out, of the greatest interest to scholars.
It is important that all the various record offices should be in close contact. We know that they cannot stay for ever at Porchester House and we must decide what is to happen, but the decision must be to the maximum convenience of the students interested in these matters. So far as I can judge, there is virtual unanimity among those who have to deal with these matters. My hon. Friend has put those views and 1 urge the right lion. Lady to consider them carefully.
My hon. Friend has advanced the interesting idea of the extension of the proposed Public Record Office at Kew. At first sight, this seems an attractive proposition and I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to consider that as well as my hon. Friend's other arguments.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee)
May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on his stamina. He has been having a field day today. I know that he is deeply involved in this matter and I know of the scholarship behind this Adjournment motion. It is only a matter of days since we met in my office, when we had a very thorough discussion. I know that he will agree that the various points of view put forward then were very carefully recorded, and definite and specific answers will be given to every one of the points raised.
The problem of records is not the same as the problem of relics. I want to assure hon. Members that these two things have been very carefully considered on their respective merits. I went carefully through every alternative proposal put to us for the relics. I am certain that hon. Members recognise that Clapham is not the answer. Then I was told about St. Pancras. It was surprising that the experts had not found out that St. Pancras was not available. We went through every alternative. There are all kinds of practical reasons why I am 230 certain that York is the right centre for the railway relics. It will be a great custom-built modern museum giving great pleasure and enlightenment to all those who are interested.
Then there is the problem of the records. They are, in the main, of interest to the scholar, but also to the general public. However there is a financial side to this. The amount of money that can be saved if the records go to York is estimated at about £20,000 a year, on running costs alone. Apart from this there is the problem of where these records could be housed when they leave Porchester Road, which is unsuitable. It is not just the case that there is no security of tenure, but accommodation is nearly exhausted, and cannot be added to much more. The building is on a very busy road junction making unloading from vans difficult, and owing to the nuisance arising from diesel fumes often no windows can be left open. There is every kind of reason for moving as soon as possible. Ministry of Public Building and Works officials have gone over the possibility of finding a site in the London area. The money available is £50,000 and it would take practically double that to get anything like a suitable building in Outer London, and more in Inner London. The available funds do not allow for a purpose-built building for records any more than for relics. Kew has been mentioned but it would be six or seven years before it could come into operation. I will certainly look at this proposal, as I have looked at the others.
We have to remember that York is only three hours from London, whether by road or rail, and that the number of serious students is limited. I hope to be able to give hon. Members opposite more exact information about how limited it is. We are examining the numbers who can be satisfied by a postal service, by a telephone call or by having documents reproduced and sent to them. It will, I think, be found that when these numbers are subtracted, we will have to look very carefully at any proposition that would move us from my present bias that, in the main, it would be in the interest of scholars as well as of everyone else for the records to go to York. York is a very pleasant place, and facilities for studying will be ideal, much better than they are in London at the present time.
231 It is interesting that much of this same argument was deployed concerning the records of the Hydrographic Department of the Admiralty. They had outgrown their premises in Cricklewood and purpose-built accommodation was provided in Taunton. There were precisely the same arguments that there would be inconvenience to scholars, that they would have to consult records at the British Museum, the Admiralty and other places, and that Taunton could do only part of the job. Taunton has been operating now for over a year, however, and there has been practically no complaint. On the contrary, London-based scholars have said how delighted they are with the facilities with which they are provided at Taunton.
I am not underestimating the distinction of the deputation organised by the British Records Association, of which the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was a member. However, it did not represent the total views of scholars. One will never get a total view among scholars or anyone else. There is the point of view of the northern universities and of people who are accommodated elsewhere than in London. We are carefully analysing how many of the people who have been going to Porchester Road are London-based and how many of them would find York as convenient, or even more convenient, a centre as London.
I am not seeking to be dogmatic, and I do not under-estimate the difficulties that would be caused to some of our most distinguished scholars if the records 232 went to York. There is no ideal solution in an imperfect world. We cannot possibly satisfy everyone. We must have the right kind of building but we must have it at the right cost; that is within the limits of the funds that are available to us. We are living in an age of rapid transport and easy communication. In addition to the fact that there will be a postal service and a telephone service. we are also considering the possibility of setting up an information point in the Science Museum in London, to which anyone could take their queries.
I assure hon. Members opposite that I appreciate and understand the spirit in which they have raised this Adjournment debate. I am looking with the greatest care at every point that has been raised, not only tonight, but by the delegation which called on me. The decision to go to York will not be lightly entered into. It will be taken after considering the viewpoint of people who live north of York and in other parts of the country. In any event, York will have the records for the North-East and London will have the records for London, although these represent only 3 per cent. of the material which is now at Porchester Road. Therefore, while I do not want to hold out any hope to hon. Members tonight that there could be any change in my present opinion, I do give the assurance that every point which has been raised, either tonight or from other sources, is being most carefully studied and analysed.