National Archives under threat?

[teaurn]

It is something I wouldn't have known about GS without you posting a thread.

[kerryb]

Me neither and I wonder if there is anything we can do that is positive rather than just speculating.

Kerry

[Nick29]

Unfortunately it's almost impossible to discuss government agencies without getting a little political, and this could affect us all.  However, governments can collaborate with businesses to achieve things and still make a profit without selling off the assets - take the government's recent collaboration with Brightsolid to release the 1911 census, for example.  The actual census material is still the property of the Crown, and both the government and private enterprise have made money from it.

[Redroger]

Again GS you are right, the previous government was no better, but let's remember where the whole idea of privatisation comes from; it is a consequence of membership of the European Union, which requires all state owned undertakingsa to be privatised. Regarding the statements made about privatisations usually giving a worse service, look at the totally botched rail privatisation in Britain, and the serious safety situation which arose a few years ago as a result, Hatfield and Potter's Bar disasters etc.

[kerryb]

A friend observed to me recently

the public sector go all out for their patients/customers/clients and couldn't care less about the staff whilst the private sector pamper their staff and shareholders and couldn't care less about customers/clients

Whilst I am sure that is a generalisation I can number a variety of examples I know that hold up that statement 

Kerry

[Redroger]

Maybe, my experience tells me that the majority of private employers couldn't give a damn about their staff either, in fact, all to often as regards staff training they would poach trained individuals from the public sector. Still happens I believe with agency nurses and teachers.

[Greensleeves]

I suppose what makes me uncomfortable is that information such as the National Archives is garnered using public (ie taxpayers') money, so in theory we own it.  If I paid for a field of wheat to be harvested and stored, I would assume that I could then take it and use it as I thought fit.  I would not expect the chap who owned the silo, who had already been recompensed for its  storage, to then try to sell it back to me.

[Aberdeen Archives]

Deleted - posted in the wrong place!

[Archivos]

I suppose what makes me uncomfortable is that information such as the National Archives is garnered using public (ie taxpayers') money, so in theory we own it.  If I paid for a field of wheat to be harvested and stored, I would assume that I could then take it and use it as I thought fit.  I would not expect the chap who owned the silo, who had already been recompensed for its  storage, to then try to sell it back to me.

But you wouldn't take a document from TNA because you 'own' it.  While records in TNA are designated public records under legislation, it doesn't mean that the public can do with them what they want!

I think that the worry over the future of TNA is a bit premature - there will be consultations, reviews, and a possible change in legislation before anything happens (if, indeed, anything does). 

While support for TNA (and other archives) is great, the support needs to be focused if there is to be any influence from it.  Since nothing about the future of TNA is concrete, I wouldn't worry unduly just now.