HL Deb 01 May 1991 vol 528 cc827-50

8.1 p.m.

Lord Teviot rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take on the basis of the scrutiny report of the Public Record Office.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for staying behind for this debate. My noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness mentioned stress. There was no stress when I listened to the debate on education, and certainly no stress in my Unstarred Question. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend who is to reply.

It is nearly 14 years since matters to do with the Public Record Office were discussed in your Lordships' House. On that occasion we set out to discuss what had happened since the Grigg Committee reported in 1954. From that, the Public Record Office Act emerged in 1958. Among its many provisions, it will be best remembered for bringing in the 50-year rule on the opening up of documents. This was luckily later reduced in 1967 to the current 30-year rule except for those documents retained on extended closure for varying periods and varying reasons. Following the 1977 debate, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Elwyn-Jones, ordered the Wilson Commission to be set up. That reported in 1980. Some of its recommendations—but not all—have been carried out.

We now have before us a very different type of report: namely, the scrutiny report of the Public Record Office published in December last year. Overall, one must comment that it is a thorough piece of work going into great detail on every aspect and function of the office.

However, one main criticism arises. It is that following a previous debate, the policy of preservation of documents and access has not been tackled. I am aware that this is an ongoing situation, but nevertheless it is vital. We now go into harsh, nationalistic sentiments. Unashamedly and immodestly, I say that without doubt the United Kingdom boasts the finest archives in the world. We usually look to other continents to make such statements but this is universally recognised. Nevertheless, we do not even appear to have an overall archives policy.

Again, reading the report, I thought that perhaps the scrutineers—if they do not mind the term—were a little harsh on the present running of the office and the staff. I have been associated with the Public Record Office for over 20 years, both as a reader and a member of the advisory council. During that time I have always had the greatest respect for the staff, though they may have less for me. I approve wholeheartedly of the PRO (to use its initials) becoming a Next Steps Executive Agency. I recently met various people from government organisations which have become agencies. They all expressed the view that there have been positive improvements. It is much better for them to run their own affairs and, to a greater extent, control their destiny.

I shall not comment on the staffing reorganisation proposals. That is strictly the business of the department of my noble and learned friend and the Public Record Office. I simply wish it well. The recommendation to change the name of the Public Record Office to the National Archives, I hear on the grapevine, is not likely to be carried out. I am delighted, I shall not say more about it except that it would have been unnecessary and misleading.

In the rest of my speech I shall comment on some of the proposals recently put forward so well by the Record Users Group and the Friends of the Public Record Office. I shall not take them in order; but in all these areas some issues loom large. First, I shall deal with location and accommodation, in the report Recommendations Nos. 108 to 114. We debated an Unstarred Question in 1971 when we were concerned about Kew. I cannot be more pleased now that Kew has been a success. I am delighted that there will be an extension to the office on that site. However, it will be sad to gee the Public Record Office leave the Chancery Lane building where it has been since the middle of the last century. It was a Gothic building, purpose-built as an archives repository, the first of its kind, designed by Sir James Peneythorne and another architect whose name I forget. It has recently been refurbished and cleaned very well. I should be grateful to my noble and learned friend if in his speech he would comment on what will happen to that splendid building. The largest part is the strong rooms and it will be difficult to convert them to a different use. It also has a convenient location, near other record offices and institutions such as the British Library, and the General Register Office and many others.

The groups I mentioned like the Record Users Group include the universities and all kinds of archival groups such as the Society of Genealogists and others. They have been very robust on this and have turned many corners since I have known them. They state that there are advantages in bringing all the original records together at a single location. These groups firmly believe that the convenience of a central London site is vital to a large number of users. It is regarded as a central counterbalance to the removal of the original records from Chancery Lane to Kew that a government-run reading room should be set up in central London where an extensive range of microfilmed records could be consulted. Such a reading room should contain all records currently available on microfilm. Thought should be given to extending the range available.

If the rooms currently used for microfilms in the basement at Chancery Lane are unsuitable, an alternative in the same area should be found. I gather that the old Patent Office Library in Southampton Buildings is almost as grand, though not quite, and is very agreeable. That does not matter too much; but, nevertheless, a listed building will be available. I should have thought that that would be ideal. Perhaps the other material from the general registry office regarding the White Paper Registration: Proposals for Change could be made available there also.

I shall pass on to the rather large point about charging for access. One hopes that no charge will be made for viewing original documents. I was relieved to note that the report stated that the examiners took the view at Annex J of volume two of the report that, the records are public records, in that they have been created by governments on behalf of the governed and accountability requires free access to them".

That remark stands out. It is a remark that one would expect c f scholars rather than of lawyers. But for all that some people feel there is room for change to cover costs for a central London reading room when the original documents are moved to Kew. That is a step forward.

I have other points to make regarding opening hours. 1 t is hoped that the opening hours can be extended. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Beloff can comment on the situation at the British Library. The British Library opens in the evenings and on Saturdays. The report suggests that the opening hours of the Public Record Office should be extended in the evenings and at weekends. It has been suggested that it would be better for the opening hours of the PRO to be extended to 5.30 p.m. rather than the proposed opening from 9 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. The latter hours might suit me, but I believe I am in the minority in that respect. I believe it would suit many more people if the opening hours were extended to 5.30 p.m. After all, the British Library and many other institutions around the country open at such times.

I now pass on to the subject of means of reference. I have always found those to be more than adequate. I do not agree with some of the criticisms that have been made. The means of reference have improved greatly in the 20 years that I have visited the PRO. I shall read out the views of a body of people who support the recommendations. They doubt, whether sufficient volunteers can be found to provide a friendly introduction on basic information at all times. We hope that such a service could be offered at regular prearranged times. We believe more could be done to provide finding aids geared to the needs of users in the more popular subject areas. That should not be done at the expense of maintaining progress on reference materials for the lesser used records".

I do not agree with criticisms that have been made about the security guards who perform a necessary task. I have always found them very helpful. That applies also to the archival officers—or whatever one wishes to call them—and the repository assistants. They are all much more friendly than they used to be. I have an old and valued friend who has had a reader's ticket since 1928. He strongly agrees with me on this point. In the 1920s he found the officers terrifying and intimidating and the repository staff surly. That is very different nowadays.

I could make many further comments, but I must allow other speakers to contribute to the debate. Sadly, my noble friend Lord Blake cannot be with us this evening. As noble Lords are aware, my noble friend is the chairman of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. He has asked me to say that he welcomes the recommendation of the report that the historical manuscripts commission should remain independent of the PRO. He is not convinced by the arguments on page 166 of the annex in favour of incorporation. He is glad that, after balancing the pros and cons, the report has come down in favour of the historical manuscripts commission and the PRO continuing to be separate organisations. Now I am happy to sit down and listen to the other speakers.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Carver

My Lords, those of us who have an interest in the Public Record Office are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for giving us this opportunity to discuss its affairs. Many of those who are concerned with the office, and make use of its facilities, are aware that all is not well and that a fresh look at how it is run and who is responsible for it was badly needed. I have always found the staff of the Public Record Office extremely helpful and courteous. Only yesterday I was talking to a distinguished American professor of history who is working at the Public Record Office quite often at the moment. He told me that he found it to be an efficient office and a more satisfactory place to obtain documents than the National Archives in the USA.

Those who carried out this scrutiny and produced this important report are to be commended. They have made a large number of recommendations, on many of which I am not competent to comment. In general, whatever reservations I may have about "next steps" agencies, I believe the report was right to recommend them in this case because there is a need for a stronger, clearer and more independent grip on management, provided that we do not—this has happened with some "next steps" agencies—let the primary purpose of the organisation be prejudiced in any way by gimmicks intended to raise cash.

I shall confine my remarks to one aspect only of the matter. It is referred to in paragraph 5.21 of the first volume of the report, and in more detail in paragraph 6 of Appendix L in the second volume. It is, to use the words of the report: The apparently increasing frequency with which departments retain selected records". The report mentioned that the concern of "users, particularly academic historians", was shared by officials of the PRO, and pointed out that, unlike applications for extensions to the normal 30-year closure period, retention was not subject to consideration by the Advisory Council. Even in the case of extensions where the council is involved, I am informed that the council does not see the actual papers and therefore is unable to judge how valid are the grounds on which the department seeks an extension.

In a Starred Question to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on 28th January, I raised one case which involved each type—one file having been extended for 50 years and the other retained by the department, which was in both cases the Cabinet Office. The noble and learned Lord paid me the courtesy of expanding on his reply to that Question in a personal exchange of letters. His letter included one very significant sentence which I hope he will not mind me quoting. He wrote: The Advisory Council and PRO officials are scarcely in a position to argue with the Cabinet Office (or indeed with any other Government Department) that the release of the information in such records would not in fact harm the country's diplomatic relations with other countries". Many of those like myself who are concerned with the compilation of contemporary history believe that what is badly needed is a body which is in a position to argue with the Cabinet Office, or any other Government department, including, notably, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, and which has the knowledge and authority to do so. I share the widely held belief that both on the grounds of diplomatic embarrassment, and under the cover of the blanket authority to retain all material relating to nuclear defence matters, a large amount of material of important historical interest is being held back which would not now be protected by the new Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act; that is, material that would cause serious injury or danger to the interests of the nation or the capability of the armed forces.

I can give two examples of papers still retained on those grounds. The first is a Defence Committee paper of 1947, known as the Three Pillars paper. The second is the Chiefs of Staff global strategy paper of July 1952. Both were very important in setting the direction of British defence policy for many years thereafter. Everyone knows what their general conclusions were. What possible reason can there be for hanging on to them for nearly half a century? The only nuclear matter that needs to be kept secret after all that time is the design of a warhead. I do not object to the 30-year rule, but why should one keep secret for more than 30 years disparaging remarks about other countries?

Professor Sir Michael Howard said in a recent review of a book about Haig in the The London Review of Books that there are documents of the First World War which have been retained for 75 or 100 years, apparently for the sole reason of protecting the reputation of a field marshal or a general. I can think of no worse reason for retaining a document.

I do not suggest that the activities of the secret services should be revealed. If there are some portions of such papers which need to be retained they could surely be excised, as I believe happens already in some cases. When authority to extend the 30-year rule or for a department to retain a document is given I believe that it should be reviewed at regular intervals. I understand that that does not now happen. I also understand that there is no method by which a historian can request that the retention or extension of a particular document should be reviewed.

The scrutiny report suggested, in the paragraph from which I have already quoted, that it might allay public concern if departments were able to adopt a more open approach, giving some broad indication of the nature of the records and the reason for retention. My question to the noble and learned Lord is: what action does he propose to take on that suggestion in the report?

I believe, and there are others who also believe, that something more radical than encouraging words is needed. My own suggestion is that a body of Privy Counsellors should be commissioned to probe into the whole matter and recommend how the oppressive lid of secrecy should be lifted in favour of a more open attitude to contemporary history.

8.22 p.m.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, I hasten to say that unlike the two previous speakers, I no longer have any personal interest in access to records. For me, Kew could as well be Timbuctoo. I worked in Chancery Lane before the war. However, I have been asked and I thought it useful to communicate to your Lordships the views which have been evident in the discussions held in the history sections of the British Academy, which is one of the organisations which was consulted in the course of the scrutiny review, but which has not been consulted further about its implementation.

As might be expected, those who are primarily concerned with the history of this century feel very much as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. His proposal was not before them, but it is my impression that a regularisation of the position would be welcomed. Responsibility for these decisions, which affect the work of individuals and historians in particular, should be based upon a clearer and more publicly available set of policies, and the decisions should perhaps be monitored in a way which would enable Them to be challenged from time to time if there were thought to be reasons for regarding a particular decision as unwarranted.

On tie other hand, for those of my colleagues in the British Academy who specialise in earlier periods of history as well as for those concerned with more recent events, there are other aspects of the scrutiny report which give rise to considerable concern. In particular, great concern was expressed about the proposed changes in staffing—a point which the noble Lord, Lord touched upon but did not develop.

The view that has been expressed within the history sections of the British Academy—which has not as a body expressed a formal view—is that caring for archives and making them available to scholars is a highly specialised job, and not one which would normally be pursued fully by someone who had joined as a potential administrator at a very young age. The conflation of the administrative and academic or archival staff is something which the historians in the Academy regard, on the basis of their own experience and reliance on the assistance of the archival staff, as something that ought to be considered very carefully before the proposed changes are made.

They would echo what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said about opening hours. For foreign scholars coming to this country for limited periods the number of hours they can spend in the record office may be of very considerable importance. That applies equally to people with full-time teaching appointments who have to fit visits to the PRO in with those commitments.

My colleagues were naturally exercised about the possibility of charges. The view was expressed that, though charges might be appropriate for persons using the records for what might be termed commercial purposes—for example, a person employed to discover someone's genealogy—in principle charges should not be imposed on persons using them for private scholarship. More particularly, at a time when, a was observed in the previous debate in the House this afternoon, postgraduate students and academic teachers who are important users of the records are particularly hard hit financially, charges might be a considerable burden upon them unless they were merely nominal.

Finally, concern was expressed about the fact that almost nothing is said in the scrutiny report about what has in the past been a very important function of the Pub is Record Office; namely, publications. The Public Record Office is in arrears in publishing even the calendars of documents which have long existed in typescript. The calendars give one an entry into what the archives have to offer. It is felt that in any change of administration the role of publisher, which has been of enormous importance to scholars not only in this country but all over the world, ought to be reviewed.

Fortified with those observations of my colleagues, I then reread the scrutiny report. If I may humbly say so to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, it seems to me that the report itself would almost inevitably have offered those gaps in the sense that it is dominated—and here I speak as a professional student of government—by the fashionable mode of managerial expertise. It is full of the jargon which, I am afraid, is now frequently used in the Civil Service and is creeping into other aspects of national life. There is therefore a great deal about targets, performance and things like that which, to scholars at any rate, may seem a little alien.

It is not clear that it was either explained to the scrutineers or arrived at by them what the purpose of the Public Record Office is. The purpose is the preservation, the making available and, as I said, the publication of archives. That is made manifest by the suggestion that, rather than publish further calendars of state papers and so on, it should go in for educational publishing of items which might be of interest to school children.

It was never intended in the middle of the 19th century, nor was it considered on the last review, that the Public Record Office should be an educational institution, still less that it should try to finance itself by ventures in that direction. That is not to say that it would not be a good thing for a young person to know that this country has, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said, a unique collection of national archives. However, we who work in the Palace of Westminster are familiar, if we are here in the mornings, with columns of school children being instructed in the Princes' Chamber about the wives of Henry VIII and other useful information of that kind. But that does not suggest that the Houses of Parliament exist as an educational institution. That is not germane to their central function.

If I may say so very humbly to my noble and learned friend, serious consideration should be given to the points that my colleagues on the Academy raised, and the implications for the future conduct of the Public Record Office, because decisions which will be made in the near future, if it becomes an agency, may have another century or so to run before they are looked at again.

8.32 p.m.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for introducing this topic, not merely out of convention but also for saving me the trouble of doing so myself.

I must also declare a bewildering variety of interests. I speak as a vice-president of the Royal Historical Society, which has expressed its views on the subject. I have read my Companion to the Standing Orders. I know that noble Lords do not speak for outside interests. They speak for themselves, but, if I happen to agree with the collective views of a body of which I am a member, that is something that has happened to most of us and one might ask, if not, why not?

Further, one of the authors of the scrutiny report happens to be my former pupil. I have had the benefit of his advice. It has been very valuable, but I hope that I am not so bad a tutor as to expect my pupils to agree with everything that I say. I am sure that the present occasion will be no exception.

I am also chairman of a large postgraduate seminar with a heavy overseas representation. I am therefore particularly aware of the interests of the overseas users of the office.

Finally, I am a regular PRO reader and the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and I are the only Chancery Lane readers in the Chamber. As one who teaches in the Strand and researches in Chancery Lane, I have a particular interest in opposing any move to Kew. I hope that I have been here long enough to distinguish my own interest from the public interest, but the requirement to declare an interest entitles your Lordships to judge that matter for themselves.

I speak not only as a reader, but as a very satisfied reader. The standards of service that the office supplies to its readers are very high and among postgraduates in London that seems to be a general and almost universal opinion. The report seems to me to be insufficiently aware of that fact. I say to the only one of the authors of the report who has been on search room duty, that, to my knowledge and by my own observation, he has done himself a good deal less than justice in the matter.

The only exceptions to that general contentment among readers are the opening hours, on which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, touched, and the photographic charges. About these feelings are very strong. Our public records are a national asset. In saying that, I do not mean it only in the obvious cultural sense. I mean it in the plain, economic sense of pounds, shillings and pence. I do not think that the figures that reach the Treasury adequately represent the truth of that.

There is a heavy use of our records by foreigners. An office survey of September 1990 showed 27 per cent. foreigners among those using Kew and 15 per cent. among those using Chancery Lane. The choice of September gravely underrated foreign participation because it is after American term and in English vacation. If May had been chosen, foreign participation might well have been double that level.

Those people all bring money into the country. They buy items carrying VAT and excise duty. When, after my seminar has met, I watch beer going down American throats, I occasionally wonder what the meeting of that seminar is worth to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It must be a good deal. None of that shows in the profit and loss accounts of the office, but, if we are to have a genuine cost benefit analysis of the use of the records, those matters must be taken into account, especially in the photographic services, which, as I know from memory, can be vital to scholars of English history working overseas. Last year, there were 19,374 inquiries by post for photographic services, of which a great many will have come from overseas.

As director of graduate studies at Yale, I also had occasion to observe that the way countries provide for those using their records influences people's decisions as to which country's history they will study. So far, the French have been the main losers from that. I do not want it to become us. If charging were introduced, that might happen. I have on the Bench beside me letters from visiting scholars from the universities of Moscow and Gottingen, both of them expressing the view that, were charges introduced it would gravely discourage the study of British history in their countries.

The letter from the university of Moscow stated that, at the present juncture of its affairs, the study of English parliamentary and constitutional history is capable of being of peculiar use to them. We should bear that point in mind. In so far as Americans believe that they have a special relationship with this country, the sharing of a common history is an important part of that. The importance of the records to our national policy stretches far beyond anything that goes into the public profit and loss accounts that we have discussed. I shall not dwell on the subject of charging. It would cause great dismay if it were introduced, but I need not say more about it at present.

I see no cause for a change of name. The Royal Historical Society is clearly right: it would involve many amendments to statutes and would render inaccurate millions of footnotes. That would be change for change's sake. I hope that the Government will not feel any need to go ahead with that.

I have misgivings about the abandonment of Chancery Lane. The Royal Historical Society expressed itself to be extremely anxious about that move. The building in Chancery Lane is purpose-built for record storage. It is expensive to change its interior, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said. Property holdings have said that it will be hard to sell. The putative savings from the move to Kew include the rent, rates and maintenance on the Chancery Lane building. But it is a grade 2 listed building. It must be maintained. The Government cannot save the maintenance on it unless they can find an alternative use for it.

I am grateful for the suggestion of the use of microfilms. That would be a lot better than nothing. But when we have such an excellent purpose-built building for the storage of records, it seems a pity that the office should use it for any purpose other than storage of records. I have some doubt about the putative savings involved in the move. The Royal Historical Society described those savings as hypothetical and questionable. I agree. The building at Kew is at present designed to house the flow of records down to 2025.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Earl. He talks about savings. I was remiss in not having mentioned that the saving in going from Chancery Lane to Kew is in the high cost of security. That is the main area. Again I apologise for interrupting the noble Earl.

Earl Russell

I thank the noble Lord for having raised that point. I agree with what he said about security. I have looked at the figures and, as I remember them, security accounts for £145,000 and we are dealing with £2.6 million. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will correct me if those figures are wrong.

I was arguing that the building at Kew will not be adequate for very long for the extra body of records that will be able to be transferred. According to the Keeper in his letter of 2nd April to the Royal Historical Society, the move would mean using mobile racking at Kew now. With mobile racking the repository might be full as early as 2012. That means that it will not be long before we must think about the costs of a new building at Kew.

I know that democracy encourages a short-term view in another place, but maybe this Chamber can take a slightly more long-term view of the matter. It is also worth stressing that there should be room at Kew to have the class lists and finding aids in the same room with the documents. That is vital. It is exactly the same as having the Marshalled List and the groupings available to those taking part in the proceedings of this House in Committee. Without them Members can become rather lost.

With regard to the readers, 79 per cent. of those who use the census room have visited another central London repository on the same day: St. Catherine's House, the Greater London Record Office, and so forth. II would clearly be a considerable inconvenience to have to travel down to Kew. Also, 64 per cent. of those NA ho work in Chancery Lane do so as part of their occupation. It is not a leisure activity; it is a job.

Those who teach in London could not teach and research on the same day. Those who come down from the provinces—this is a point that has been strongly made to me by a colleague from the University of Sheffield—could not commute to London for a day's work in the records. That can be done for Chancery Lane because it is close to King's Cross, Euston and Liverpool Street. They would have to spend the night in a London hotel and, quite legitimately, would claim the cost of it on their Schedule D expenses. That would diminish the notional saving.

Moreover, postgraduates would need to spend more nights in London, which would either further increase the expenses of being a postgraduate—a matter on which the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, dwelt not many minutes ago —or have the effect of concentrating in London all postgraduate research in history. I might not regret that, but plenty of other people would do so, and with some excuse.

I want to ask the noble and learned Lord—I have checked the text and am not sure of the answer—whether moving the records out of Chancery Lane would involve a repeal of the Rolls Estate Act 1837. On the question of Next Steps, I do not think that we need oppose it in principle.

I am somewhat concerned about performance indicators. The noble and learned Lord may perhaps have read the annual report of the Chief Adjudication Officer in Social Security, who drew attention to the fact that there is no concern with quality in the drafting of the department's performance indicators. There is a performance indicator for how fast staff make decisions but none for whether they have got them right. That is a mistake that I should not like to see repeated in this case. I should like to ask whether the advisory council, in which I have a great deal of confidence, can be consulted on the performance indicators to be used when the Next Steps agency is set up. I should particularly like to know whether they could include one dealing with the editing and cataloguing—on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—and one dealing with the conservation of documents. In the current Deputy Keeper's report, the noble and learned Lord will see that the amount of conservation being carried out is decreasing. When I say that public records are irreplaceable, I do not speak metaphorically.

Finally, I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he can induce the Treasury to look again at the overheads charged to the Public Record Office photographic services. It is the overheads which make those costs so exorbitantly high by comparison with comparable organisations. A great many of our photographic orders are for export. There are very few cases now where we can spend money to make our exports cheaper without falling foul of GATT. This is one of them and it deserves consideration.

8.46 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, the amateur follows the professionals and does so with proper humility and modesty. Before I say anything else, perhaps I may remark on the fact that on Monday night last the noble Earl who has just preceded me, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I were engaged beyond midnight on the Child Support Bill. Yesterday the noble Earl and I were engaged until gone midnight on the War Crimes Bill. Tonight we are engaged together on this report. If that does not deserve an entry as a public record, I do not know what does.

I am grateful, as I am sure are all noble Lords, to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for allowing an amateur such as Ito be forced to read a most interesting report and learn a little more about a great national institution. In this report I saw on page 3 the description of our subject tonight. The report says: The Public Record Office holds on behalf of the nation a collection of historical records that is second to none in the world". I am taught that the collection goes back to the Domesday Book of 1086 and then follows on in the great tradition that we have in this country and in our history.

It is worthy of mention—the public ought to know this and most likely does not—that the Public Record Office employs 440 staff. The noble Earl spoke in terms of comparative expenditure and it is interesting to note that in the past year 1989–90 the cost of that office was £16.3 million. We are talking about a most interesting institution and, as I said, one which safeguards the national heritage.

I have read many reports in my time, as have your Lordships. I hope that noble Lords will not think that I am being in the slightest degree facetious on such an interesting subject, but I must say that I have never before seen such diplomacy as was used by the scrutineers who prepared this report. I shall illustrate what I mean.

Turning to the very first page one finds: Our main findings are that: there is widespread goodwill towards the PRO from its users, many of whom think it is providing a good service in difficult circumstances". What a diplomatic commencement, when one finds that the following ensues! The report states: However, there was evidence that the Office has been insufficiently responsive to the changing profile and needs of its users. There was wide concern within the Office about a lack of clear leadership and direction in managing resources effectively. Management and financial planning and information systems are inadequate for the 1990s. The organisational structure is out of balance and poorly suited to the most efficient performance of its functions", And on it goes with criticisms of a like nature.

Before I had read the key recommendations, I had hoped that somewhere or other I would be given an adequate reason for the apparently substantial goodwill towards the office at the very commencement of these pages. I am sure that the reason is that the scrutineers thought that they were not there to praise Caesar but to try to improve whatever the remains of Caesar were by making recommendations.

I know that noble Lords will forgive me for making my remarks of a general nature. I also looked at the recommendations on page 32. I bear in mind the history of the superintendence of this office. It was first invested in the Master of the Rolls, then in the office of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but, with the Master of the Rolls being the chairman of the council.

I noted that there is a statutory provision which enshrines the chairmanship of the council in the Master of the Rolls. On page 32 of Volume One, it states: We support the proposal made by the Wilson Committee in 1981 and agreed by the Government in 1982 that the statutory provision specifying that the Master of the Rolls be the Chairman of the Council should be repealed". I wonder what the noble and learned Lord thinks of that proposal. Does he consider that there should be a follow-up of the recommendation; namely, that there should be a council which is smaller but more representative of current readers?

My final observation your Lordships will be delighted to know that it is my final one—relates to the study of history which was mentioned by the noble Earl, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. At page 5, the report states: In its 1990 Report, the National Curriculum History Working Group said: 'The study of history in schools…should have at the core the history of Britain, the record of its past and, in particular, its political, constitutional and cultural heritage…(and) should help pupils to acquire and develop an historical approach based on objective analysis of evidence". As an amateur in this matter, can I be taught what liaison there is between the Public Record Office, the Department of Education, our schools and our education authorities to ensure that that proposal is brought home and that some practical action is taken in our schools?

I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord who was responsible for initiating the debate and for my reading a most interesting report. I apologise once more if my remarks are those of the amateur, following upon the extremely eminent speakers who preceded me and whose position in the world of academics is so high.

8.55 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)

My Lords, perhaps I may join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Teviot for asking this Question and initiating this important debate.

It may be significant of the character of the debate I say very sincerely—notwithstanding having listened to both the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the Child Support Bill until a late hour on Monday night and to part of the War Crimes Bill debate last night, participating in the procedures towards the end of it—that I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate today. It has been most interesting. My enjoyment has been tempered only by the knowledge that has been at the back of my mind all the time that I had to speak at the conclusion and to provide rather a sharp contrast to the debate that has gone before.

As has been said, the Public Record Office is an office which houses a unique collection of documentary material spanning 10 centuries of British history. Any debate about public records touches at the very roots of our history. As my noble friend Lord Teviot said, and as the scrutiny team also said, it is unique in the world in quality.

The purpose of the record office is described by the scrutiny team; and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to a passage in which that is done. The office is entrusted with the custody of our great national archival heritage, including records of the courts of law and central government which have survived or which have been selected for permanent preservation from Domesday Book to the present day. It hardly needs me to say that the quantity and quality of the information contained in the office's holdings are beyond valuation altogether in monetary terms.

In carrying out its statutory responsibility for that heritage, the office has found it increasingly necessary to strike a balance between the many changing, and often conflicting, demands which are placed upon the resources available to it. Since the beginning of 1966, when records of the period up to 1922 were opened as a first step towards establishing the present normal access period of 30 years, the amount of space occupied by the records has risen from 300,000 feet to over 476,000 feet—a matter of some 90 miles-worth of records. Attendances in the search rooms have also continued to rise steadily during this period. The numbers were 44,000 in 1966 compared with 125,000 in the financial year 1989–90. The total number of written requests for information from or about the records, and orders for photocopies received by post, also continue to rise. Over 19,000 were received in 1989–90, an increase of around 14 per cent. compared with the previous year. That all represents a vast increase in workload for the office. I should like to take this opportunity to join with those noble Lords who have already paid tribute to the magnificent efforts of the keeper and staff of the Public Record Office. It is difficult and skilled work and I know that we are all very conscious of the debt that we owe them. In normal circumstances one finds that the more work people have to do, the more grumpy and less courteous they are. It has not turned out that way in the Public Record Office—quite the opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has testified eloquently to that fact from his own experience. I have had the opportunity of visiting fully both the Public Record Office in Chancery Lane, the conservation work that is done in part of the Land Registry building, and also the building at Kew. As your Lordships may imagine, I have been treated to the most courteous welcome.

The quality and nature of the conservation work is extremely high. It is intricate and most interesting to watch. I spent some time watching the skilled craftsmen, who were devoted to their work and found satisfaction in it, repairing old books and documents. Like the National Health Service, the methods available for the conservation of the records have greatly improved during the years. Constantly new techniques become available which the Public Record Office uses.

As the Minister responsible for the Public Record Office, I have been aware of the difficulties under which the office has had to operate and of the increasing demands placed upon it. At the same time I am must concerned that the priceless national asset held by the office is maintained as efficiently as possible, and that the best quality of service is provided to those who wish to make use of it. It is for those reasons and against that background that it was decided that a fundamental look at the workings of the office should be undertaken, and that an efficiency scrutiny would provide the ideal vehicle for carrying that forward.

As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, the scrutiny team soon realised that the people who use the office had great goodwill towards it. No doubt that is due to the courteous way in which they are treated. It was in the internal workings and management of the office, the careers structure of the staff, and so forth, that the scrutiny team found room for improvement in order to preserve and improve the service to the public.

The scrutiny was set up in August last year. It was carried out by officials of my department, the Public Record Office and the Prime Minister's efficiency unit. One member of the scrutiny team was a civil servant of the Federal Government of Australia and was on secondment to the Lord Chancellor's Department. He worked in the office of the Prime Minister of that great Commonwealth country before coming to the Lord Chancellor's Department. I am not certain whether he regarded that as a promotion, but I know that he greatly enjoyed the work. He was extremely interested in the challenging assignment that he had been given.

The team's remit was to look at the functions, management and organisation of the office, to examine the services that it provided and to make proposals for its future status; in particular, whether it should be established as an executive agency under the Government's Next Steps programme. In view of the wide scope of the terms of reference under which the team had to operate, and because the time scale imposed for the completion of such a review was limited to three months, it was agreed that the scrutiny should be undertaken within the confines of the existing public records legislation; that is the Public Records Acts of 1958 and 1967. Therefore it did not cover such matters as the 30 year rule and the criteria for the extended closure of records. I shall mention that matter in more detail later. The attention of the scrutiny team was not drawn to that, although it dealt with the subject to some extent as a narrative form to its remit.

The terms of reference set a considerable challenge to the team and it has produced a comprehensive report. It is to be congratulated on producing practical and sensible recommendations about what I know can be a difficult and emotive topic. In general, the report demonstrates the fact that there are areas where there is substantial scope for improving the efficiency of the office while delivering a better service to the public. I have now agreed an action plan for the report and have accepted a majority of its 127 recommendations. Several of those which were rejected will, nevertheless, receive further consideration because they contain useful proposals but cannot be implemented either within the timetable suggested or in the precise way in which they have been formulated.

With so many recommendations to consider ranging from major structural changes to minor operational enhancements, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if in the limited time available to me to reply to the debate I do not comment on each and every one. However, I shall comment on what I consider to be the key recommendations having heard your Lordships' remarks.

All noble Lords who referred to the move to an agency status considered it to be a good idea. If what is being delivered is a service, including the preservation of the archives and making them available to the public, the agency status is by far the best way of doing that. The delivery of the service is separated from the policy formulation of government, leaving the core department to monitor what is happening and to look at the features of the executive agency. The Public Record Office fits that profile well. It has always been a discrete administrative unit. It is independently accountable with its own vote and it is in the business of delivering a service to the public and to the Government.

Agency status will provide the office's staff with new opportunities to contribute to the better management and organisation of this vast national asset. At the same time it will provide the right environment to enable the office to adapt to the changing needs of its users and to ensure the best possible service to its customers.

It is true that the scrutiny team concentrated mainly on management. Targets and so forth are part of that. Perhaps I may deal with a matter raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The setting of performance targets is a challenging task. Perhaps it is easier to set targets for time than for quality. In relation to judicial matters in particular, targets for quality are delicate to set. On the other hand, justice delayed is justice denied. Therefore, unless time targets are met, however high the quality of the ultimate judgment, there is a degree of injustice.

Several noble Lords have referred to the title of the new agency. The scrutiny team's recommended title of The National Archives has not found much favour since the report was published. It could at best be confusing and at worst misleading. The Public Record Office is well-known throughout the world by its present title. As the noble Earl said, it features in a substantial number of footnotes, and the proposed new title will raise difficulties with other national archival organisations within the United Kingdom.

On more practical grounds, there is little prospect of parliamentary time for the necessary legislation that would be required to amend the Public Records Act. And the cost of amending the office's large amount of publicity material would also be quite significant. Because I think that the name has already attained a great deal of goodwill, and it is a silly thing to damage goodwill by changing the name, I have decided that that particular recommendation should not be accepted and that the Public Record Office will stay under that name.

I now turn to the question of Chancery Lane. One recommendation of the scrutiny report, about which I have received a number of representations, and where there has been a good deal of criticism from users of the office and organisations representing them, concerns the transfer of the records at Chancery Lane to Kew. There is no doubt that some readers would be inconvenienced by the closure of Chancery Lane, which is close to many other central London research institutions. There are, however, significant advantages in consolidating the Public Record Office's operations on one site. The office would be easier to manage, with a much stronger sense of common purpose. The concentration of reader services on one site and the greater efficiency inherent in the Kew building will enable extended opening hours to be introduced far more easily and economically.

The scrutiny team estimated that savings in the region of £2 million per annum would accrue as a result of consolidation at Kew. That, of course, is saving to the Public Record Office. Something depends on what happens to the building that they vacate. The keeper and his management team are firmly of the view that this is the right way forward and I have, therefore, accepted the recommendation that all original records in Chancery Lane should be moved to Kew once the extension there is completed. This is at present scheduled for the end of 1995. It is not a very imminent move.

I have also decided that, as the scrutiny recommends, the future of the Chancery Lane building, including the possibility of the office continuing to use part of it to house microfilm reading facilities, will be the subject of a separate review to be undertaken between November 1991 and February 1992. That is really where I would primarily look for such facilities.

The Patent Office building had been considered as a possible location for central London accommodation for the Public Record Office in the feasibility study, prior to the beginning of work on the Kew extension, which was completed in July 1988. It was found to be unsuitable as it consists of very many small rooms containing water pipes. The building would require major reconstruction to make it suitable for the Public Record Office. Therefore, my feeling at the moment is that the Chancery Lane building itself would be preferable to any other that we have so far thought of for that sort of accommodation.

Perhaps I may say before I leave this point that I personally feel a great attachment to the Chancery Lane building. It is a remarkable building. It was purpose-built for the time, as was said. Of course, the Rolls Estate Act regulates the site of the building, and the terms of the Act have to be considered in connection with any question about the future use of the building. It is in that way that it arises rather than in preventing a move. It would possibly regulate the future use of the building. We need to look into that as part of the consideration we must give to this matter.

May I turn now briefly to opening hours? I have for some time been aware of dissatisfaction expressed by users with the office's opening hours, which are restricted to 9.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays only, and which compare unfavourably with some similar institutions overseas. For my part, I am convinced that the task of improving access to the records should begin as soon as possible. The scrutiny team put forward some fairly ambitious ideas about how, and by when, this might be done.

But extended opening of the reading rooms has major resource implications. The keeper has concluded, and I have agreed, that we cannot undertake to implement extended opening on two evenings a week and all day on Saturday before the savings from the move of the original records from Chancery Lane to Kew, and the various improvements in the efficiency of the office, have been realised.

Nevertheless, both the keeper and I wish to see some interim improvement in this aspect of the service as soon as possible. I have therefore agreed that a pilot project should test the demand for Saturday opening of the Census Room at Chancery Lane. That will take some time to arrange and the office must explore thoroughly the practicalities of providing such a scheme, not least in respect of the availability of staff.

The pilot scheme will therefore begin in July 1992 and run initially for a six-month trial period, after which consideration will be given to whether the level of use of the service by the public is sufficient to justify it being continued. The keeper also intends to undertake surveys of readers to discover the level of demand for other limited extensions to existing opening hours which may be practicable in advance of 1995. If he could hit on fairly short extensions of opening hours which proved to be extremely popular and l& to higher use in that time, that would be the ideal.

My noble friend Lord Teviot asked what finding aids wire available and about their location. It is recognised that many of the finding aids for records currently stored at Chancery Lane are not up to the standards which the office now demands from government departments. A major project is in progress to bring these finding aids up to standard, but it will take some time to complete. Attention is also being paid to the most popular classes of records at Kew to make access to the individual papers in them simpler and quicker. Whenever possible, new finding aids are made available when only partially complete to improve access as quickly as may be.

With regard to the relationship between the Royal Commission on Historic Manuscripts and the Record Office and the transmitted view of my noble friend Lord Blake, I accepted the recommendations that the PRO and the Commission should continue to be separate organisations for the time being, but that there should continue to be a systematic exchange of information and close consultation on development and marketing of their respective publications and other outreach activities. However, I rejected those recommendations dealing with the possible co-location of the Commission and the PRO and the future merging of the work of the two bodies. Those matters have wide-ranging implications and I am not convinced that an adequate case on either count was made by the scrutiny team. I believe that that is in accord with the view of my noble friend as reported by my noble friend Lord Teviot. It is also the view of my noble friend Lord Teviot.

My responsibilities in regard to extended closure and the retention of records was raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. As I said, the scrutiny was asked to do its work within the confines of existing legislation and was not asked to deal with that matter. As I explained in my answer to the noble and gallant Lord, to which he referred, and in the letter which I wrote subsequently, records may be retained or closed for periods of longer than 30 years under appropriate sections of the Public Records Act 1958 as amended in 1967.

It has been the practice of successive administrations hitherto not to disclose the contents of such records or to comment in detail on the reasons for withholding them. I personally approve requests for the retention or extended closure of public records. But I do so only if I am satisfied that the records fall within I he established criteria set out in paragraphs 24 to 31 of the 1982 White Paper, Modern Public Records.

Records which may be withheld for longer than 30 years include documents which refer to individuals, the disclosure of which would cause distress or danger: documents containing information supplied in confidence whose disclosure would constitute a breach of good faith, and papers whose disclosure would be contrary to the public interest either on security or other grounds. I would certainly never accept us a justification for extended closure the fact that any record revealed that a person in public life had, for example, changed his view over the years or that his earlier views were demonstrated to be wrong.

The precise systems for dealing with that were narrated to some extent in the letter I wrote to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. The process for handling applications by departments for extended closure of the records is a somewhat intricate and complex one. It involves the review initially by the Public Record Office inspecting officers acting on my behalf, who are independent of the department with which they deal. We have a system under which, for example, in relation to the Ministry of Defence there are officers of the Public Record Office who have responsibility to act for me in connection with records that fall within the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.

The senior staff at the Public Record Office further review the initial decisions taken by the inspecting officers before the advisory council is consulted and before a submission is made to me. It is difficult to see how that could be effectively replicated in respect of individual documents without constituting itself a parallel inspectorate. The Public Record Office inspecting officers are given the published criteria. Those are the criteria to which they work. I narrated them to your Lordships and they will be found more fully dealt with in the published document.

It remains the view of the Government that the initial opinion of the harm that may be done to the national interest by the release of particularly sensitive information must rest with the responsible government department; it has responsibility for advising us about the nature of that information and its possible effect.

The people best placed to do that are those who currently hold the responsibility, but the inspecting officers are able to ask and seek details of these matters though they do not challenge them.

Fewer than 2 per cent. of the holdings of the Public Record Office are unavailable because they are closed for longer than 30 years. A further 2 per cent. of records are retained by departments usually because they are of exceptional sensitivity, where lapse after a particular period of time cannot be foreseen. Retentions within the department are regularly reviewed under Section 3(4) of the Act. Your Lordships will have seen that from time to time records previously closed for longer than 30 years have been opened, or the period of holding has been reduced on a review undertaken in the way I have suggested.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred to recent work concerning the First World War and, I believe, a certain field marshal. Preliminary investigations in relation to that matter by my staff in the Public Record Office have not borne out the suggestions that have been made. It is difficult to enter into detail about justification of retentions and so on without in effect discussing the contents of the documents. That immediately destroys the purpose of the retention. That is an aspect of my personal responsibilities which I take very seriously. When the records are being put to me for my decision I do ask that the Public Record Office officer responsible for inspecting these particular documents should narrate the particular aspects of the documents which bring them within whichever one or more of the published criteria upon which they are founding as justifying closure.

Some question has been raised about the staffing of the office. The scrutiny concluded that most record-related posts in the office require a mix of archival, research and administrative skills, but that the current division between curatorial and administrative grades does not adequately reflect the division of work in the office. Here I turn particularly to deal with a matter mentioned by my noble friend Lord Beloff. That has led to difficulties with the effective deployment of staff. It has hindered the development of a more effective organisational structure and has created significant morale and staff relations problems.

I am very aware that the keeper and senior management recognise that problem and consider that its resolution is essential for the effective management of the office. In line with the scrutiny team's recommendations, the keeper proposes to look again at the split between curatorial and administrative grades and consider what would be the most appropriate grading structure for the office. There is no intention in undertaking this revision of downgrading the role of the archival work of the office. Any scheme of recruitment and training will take the archival functions of the office very strongly into account. After all, that is the primary purpose of the office and we shall not lose sight of it.

I do not want to take too long on this aspect of the matter. The scrutiny recommends that there should be better planning and resource management arrangements in place in the office. I believe that there is a good deal to be said for trying to improve that aspect of the matter. My noble friend Lord Beloff referred, in the context of planning for the future, to publications by the Public Record Office. I am aware of the present difficulties that the office faces in respect of its publication programmes. Indeed the Advisory Council on Public Records has a standing committee on editorial and publication policy which has explored ways in which the office's publication activities could be enhanced within existing resources.

However, the very detailed recommendations in the scrutiny report for an increase in the office's role in serving the wider public, including the expansion of its publications programme, raise major questions about priorities in the use of resources and as between the particular documents that might be published. I accept the objective of the recommendations that the Public Record Office should establish an in-house publishing unit, and that the publications programme should be critically reviewed. But it will be necessary to examine carefully and in the context of all the other changes planned for the office what the priorities are, and what the costs and benefits would be. This will take into account the proposals in respect of other outreach activities. As a result, any changes will need to be made over a longer timescale than that set by the scrutiny team.

A number of your Lordships referred to the question of charging. This was carefully considered. There are good arguments, which are fairly summarised in the scrutiny report, both for and against charging. I do not, as part of my response today, want to go into the detailed arguments that have been expounded about the relative merits or otherwise of charging. The report lays emphasis on the office's function of providing access to the records; access in all the ways and to all the people whom the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned. The imposition of charges could create a barrier to increased access to them, though I do not consider that this would necessarily be the case. I have accepted the recommendation that basic access to the records should at present continue to be free. However, I have decided, also in line with the scrutiny's recommendation, that we should look at this again in two or three years' time in the light of specific improvements in the quality of service provided by the office and other circumstances at that time.

The scrutiny team produced estimates of the costs and savings of implementing the recommendations. These have had to be looked at again by the keeper. The scrutiny team, in the time available to it, could not do more than produce rough estimates.

The overall picture which has emerged on closer scrutiny by the keeper is not dissimilar to that which it has painted. No substantial savings can be made without vacating partly, or totally, the Chancery Lane building and cannot therefore be accomplished until the extension at Kew is completed in 1995–96. From that time, as I have already said, the keeper concluded that net savings on the office's running costs of over £2 million may be expected. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, these would be savings only to the Public Record Office unless a new use can be found for the Chancery Lane building. That is to be the subject, as I have said, of a detailed study to be undertaken towards the end of this year. The costs of transferring records and microfilms to Kew to all Chancery Lane readers have been calculated as at most about £200,000, but they will be taken into account in the review.

The Public Record Office is a subject that could occupy us for a very long time. I have endeavoured to deal with the main matters that have been raised by your Lordships. I have undertaken to consult the advisory council during the process of setting up the agency. There will be a number of meetings this year in which it can consider progress. That will include seeing the framework document which will contain key indicators of performance for the new agency as a test of its standards.

The chairman of the advisory committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned, is, under statute, the Master of the Rolls. The Government accepted the Wilson Committee's recommendation on the subject of the Master of the Rolls' compulsory ex officio chairmanship of the advisory council. However, parliamentary time has not been available to amend the Act. I have very much valued the contritbution of the present Master of the Rolls, my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington. Since I have had responsibility for these record, he has been extremely helpful in all sorts of ways, s those of your Lordships who know him well will understand readily.

From my consultations with him, I understand that he is not averse to the implementation of this recommendation on the view that, while there was a very strong connection at one time between the Master of the Rolls and the Public Record Office, as those of your Lordships who have examined the statuary in the Chancery Lane building will be aware, the person who might be best placed to chair the advisory council at a given moment might not happen to have been appointed Master of the Rolls. With his typical breadth of vision, the present Master of the Rolls has made that point to me. We would want the best qualified person to be in the chair. It is very likely that the Master of the Rolls from time to time would certainly be for consideration in that connection but he might not happen to be the best qualified person available. Accordingly, the present law continues but the recommendation accepted by the Government and now spoken of again by the scrutiny team is I should think quite a wise one.

Many questions have been raised. I have tried to deal with most of them. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is about to ask me to deal with something else, so I had better give him that opportunity.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I do so only because I had hoped that the question of liaison with the schools was a rather important subject. I hope that the noble and learned Lord agrees. If he feels that he cannot answer the matter now because of the hour I should appreciate a note from him.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I can answer the matter. In fact, I can answer it rather shortly. There is no direct link at present between the PRO and the Department of Education and Science but consideration is being given to developing an educational role for the Public Record Office. Like this building, which is not primarily here for education although I am sure that many of us learn a great deal in the course of our attendance here, I believe that it is extremely important that the institutions we value should play a part and be featured in our education system. Accordingly, we are certainly looking at that.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I am most grateful.

House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before ten o'clock.