Title: The National Archives’ User Forum
Date: 15 October 2015
Location: Talks Room
Attendees (staff):
Emma Markiewicz (EM), Head of Advice and Records Knowledge (Chair)
Jeff James (JJ), Chief Executive and Keeper
Caroline Ottaway-Searle (COS), Director of Public Engagement
Roger Kershaw (RK), Head of Audience Delivery
Lee Oliver (LO), Head of Public Services Development
Tom Gregan (TG), Head of Document Services
David Priest (DP), Production Co-ordination Manager
Stephen Hall (SH), Manager of Records and Information Management Services
Sam Whaley (SW), Head of Chief Executive’s Office
Richard Groocock (RG), Contracts and Storage Liaison Manager
Foluke Abiona (FA), Customer Intelligence Officer
Mark Jones (MJ), Customer Intelligence Assistant (Minutes)
Attendees (users):
Tom Tulloch-Marshall; Scott Reeve; Tim Powys-Lybbe; John Preston; Graham Woolgar
(GW); Richard P Bateson (RB); John Gallehawk; Sharon Hintze; T A Adams; David
Matthew (DM); R Sloan; David T Hawkings; P Eisemark; Jackie Speel; Chris Eley;
Judith Mitchell; Jasmine Belloni; Bob Wilcock; Ruth Wilcock; Joyce Hoad (JH); Paul
Blake; Else Churchill
1. EM welcomed all to the meeting
1.1 EM introduced herself as the new Head of Advice and Records Knowledge (ARK).
2. Matters arising – August Minutes
2.1 RB suggested that the minutes of the previous User Forum were not discursive
enough and that they appeared more like a set of notes. DM added that he felt that the
minutes were not clear enough and, in some instances, were quite misleading (DM to
liaise with PSD about a suitable amendment to item 4.3 08/15).
GW suggested that attendees of the User Forum be given the opportunity to submit
corrections prior to the publication of the minutes of future meetings.
EM explained that we would prefer to make sure changes to the meeting notes were
transparent, and should therefore take place within the meeting.
2.2 (Item 2.3 08/15) RB enquired whether Valerie Johnson is the Director of Research
and Collections or the Interim Director of Research and Collections.
EM confirmed that Valerie is the Interim Director of Research and Collections.
RB asked if Valerie will be attending the User Forum in November.
COS confirmed that Valerie will be invited to attend the User Forum in November.
Post meeting update: Valerie has confirmed that she will attend the User Forum in
January.
2.3 (Item 2.6 08/15) RB queried whether ‘Team Leader: Defence, Maritime and
Environment’ and ‘Principal Records Specialist, Military’ are two distinct posts held by
two different individuals.
EM explained that ‘Team Leader: Defence, Maritime and Environment’ is not a new post
- the position was offered as a management opportunity to an existing member of staff
as part of a minor restructuring exercise which has recently taken place in ARK. She
confirmed that two separate individuals cover the two posts mentioned.
2.4 (Item 2.7 08/15) RB stated that he would like to see an organisational chart, similar
to that produced for Information Policy and Services (IPS), covering all departments
within TNA.
EM confirmed that ARK has a similar organisational chart and that she will make it
available to him at the next User Forum.
2.5 (Item 2.8 08/15) JH suggested emailing previous attendees of the User Forum to
enquire whether there is any particular reason why they had stopped coming to the
meetings.
2.6 (Item 3.4 08/15) Correction: ‘1312 cards’ should read as ‘1312 pieces’.
2.7 (Item 3.7 08/15) Correction: should not say ‘all the time’. GW suggested that the
new User Advisory Group representative should ideally be someone who is able to
attend the User Forum on a regular basis.
2.8 (Item 4.6 08/15) GW enquired whether it would be possible to have the attendance
sheet for the User Forum altered to include an option to tick ‘Yes’ if attendees are happy
to have their email addresses shared amongst fellow attendees.
LO explained that we do not have formal permission to share attendees’ details but
agreed to look into the possibility of introducing an option to ‘opt-in’.
3. ‘Reflecting on the past and looking to the future’: Jeff James, Chief Executive
and Keeper
JJ went through TNA’s new four-year strategy, Archives Inspire 2015-19, and took
questions on our strategic priorities. The new strategy has been published on TNA’s
website. Take a look here.
3.1 DM remarked that since 2010, there seems to have been a sharp decline in the
amount of publicity being given to new releases by the Press Office. He noted that
interesting files are coming out which do not appear to be being publicised. He queried
why this was and wondered whether it has anything to do with resources.
JJ explained that part of the new strategy is a renewed focus on public engagement. He
drew attention to the amount of coverage Archives have received in the media during
the last year. In particular he noted the coverage given by BBC Breakfast to the Explore
Your Archive campaign, and the BBC Television series Portillo’s State Secrets – two
weeks worth of national television programming about records held at TNA! JJ stated
that the organisation’s ambition is to extend TNA’s reach and to make content available
to readers. He emphasised that press releases are just one vehicle for this. He
explained that it is TNA’s intention to build on the coverage it receives in the media
through press releases on certain files with events such as Archives at Night: For Your
Eyes Only. He added that it is not to do with resources but that it is part of TNA’s plans
to promote archives more generally.
3.2. EC asked JJ to explain and clarify the recent machinery of government change,
which has seen TNA’s sponsoring department change from the Ministry of Justice
(MOJ) to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).
JJ explained that he still exercises his duties as Keeper of public records through the
Public Records Act and that TNA’s status as an organisation, and what we do on a day
to day basis, will continue as it always has – we simply sit within a different sponsoring
department within government. To all intents and purposes it is business as usual. He
added that the Advisory Council is still chaired by the Master of the Rolls (who will fulfil
his duties through the Secretary of State for Culture) and that we will continue to hold
government departments to account about the way that they manage their information.
3.3 Q. I have noticed a marked fall in the number of visitors to TNA – is this in any way
linked to TNA’s digitisation strategy?
JJ emphasised the distinction between born-digital records and digitised records. He
explained that for the last 10 years we have had an extensive programme of digitising
our paper records, but that we are now moving into a position where we are beginning
to prepare for the first large scale accessions of records that never existed in paper
format. He pointed out that this is going to fundamentally change who we are and what
we do – over the next 10-20 years we will become a department which receives public
records in digital format and less and less of paper.
JJ further explained that for the last few years, the ratio of records TNA produces on site
and records we produce online has been around 300 (digital) to 1(paper), and that we
are currently still tracking roughly the same amount of document productions as we
always have done. He stressed that we do want to keep Kew relevant through public
engagement (e.g. events such as Archives at Night, more exhibition work, learning
activities with schools etc.) and explained that this strategy is as much about making the
experience of coming to Kew one which is enjoyable, engaging and rewarding - in order
to drive traffic to Kew - as it is about making content available online.
3.4 In terms of documents dating before either born-digital or those covered by the 20
year rule, GW noted that there is extensive coverage of First World War records and
then there is a gap, which includes the era which interests him the most – the Second
World War. He acknowledged that there are records from that period which are being
transferred on an annual basis, but called attention to the big challenge posed by the
digitisation of the Second World War service records. He pleaded for them not to be
forgotten, and warned that by not making a start on them the challenge is not going to
get any smaller.
JJ explained that the next focus for us will be the 1939 Register, which will start to
bridge that gap. He stressed that records relating to the Second World War remain a
key part of TNA’s ambitions for its engagement and digitisation strategies, and of its
continued focus to open up content moving chronologically forward. He acknowledged
that certain records series pose certain problems (e.g. records which contain personal
data that is less than 100 years old) but explained that we are alive to that and that we
will continue to keep a watching brief on it.
3.5 GW asked JJ if he is still responsible for supervising the selection of records for the
purposes of preservation.
JJ confirmed that he is. He explained that the main thing that is changing under
amendments to the Public Record Act is changing ‘Lord Chancellor’ to ‘Secretary of
State for Culture’ – it is largely a transfer of functions between one minister and another.
3.6 JJ was asked to say something about TNA’s policy for involvement – what is TNA
looking for the user to do for them?
JJ invited COS to comment. COS explained that there are lots of different levels of
involvement. For example, legislation.gov.uk relies on expert participation and we have
been working with people in the legal profession to keep the site up to date. On another
level, Operation War Diary is something where we are using crowdsourcing to tag the
War Diaries we put online. She added that we are ever grateful to the volunteers who
work onsite too - helping to catalogue and sort, and to achieve our ambitions with some
of the records we have already got here at Kew.
It was pointed out that thousands of digital images are taken by users onsite everyday
and that some of those images could be very valuable to TNA. Are TNA thinking about
doing anything about that?
COS confirmed that we are thinking of doing something about that. She explained that
the thinking is at the very early stages – at the moment the editorial control we have
over Discovery and what is in there is something we need to think very carefully about.
She added that we would like researchers to collaborate with us a bit more (e.g. sharing
their research, transcribing documents etc.) and that we welcome users’ suggestions.
3.7 JH noted that JJ had said that he represents all archives. She asked JJ to explain
what his policies are and, with particular reference to Kent Archives, what jurisdiction he
has.
JJ explained that he has various responsibilities. As Keeper of Public Records, one of
the things in the Public Record Act is for him to oversee records of local interest which
have been deposited in places of deposit. There are about 200 places of deposit across
the country, including about 80 local authority archives. JJ explained that he does not
have direct responsibility for the delivery of those services – most of them are run
through local government administration – but that we do have a team of people who
engage with archivists, officials and councillors at the local level to remind them of their
obligations under the Public Record Act, and to ensure that records which are held
locally are being kept in a condition which is comparable with that of the Public Record
Office. We essentially provide advice and support to individual archives about best
practice. He added that his primary driver is to keep records which were created locally
held locally, and that one of the ambitions in Archives Inspire is the sustainability of the
National Archives collection – it is a distributed collection and we want to make sure it is
sustained.
In the event that Kent Archives goes under a charity, JJ was asked to confirm that the
charity would be required to perform to the same standards as when it was under the
Council.
JJ explained that we have issued guidance on this subject. The responsibility rests with
places of deposit, even if they choose to deliver their services through a different
vehicle. So even if an archive set up a trust, for example, the obligation under the Public
Record Act rests in most cases with the local authority – we work with them to remind
them of their obligations under the Act.
3.8 It was noted that COS had mentioned engaging people who were interested in the
same topics. Is there any scope for setting up groups of users to share their research
and interests in association with TNA?
EM indicated that the Friends are trying to develop this idea a little bit more. She
explained that they have already set up a railways interest group and that they have
been working with some of the specialists in ARK. She agreed that it is an interesting
thing to explore.
3.9 RB queried the exercise of delegated powers and the role of the Records Decision
Panel. He explained that as he understands it, before collections are gifted to outside
bodies – because TNA doesn’t want them – such cases are supposed to go before the
Records Decision Panel. He queried whether this is correct, as he has reason to believe
that certain collections, such as the Fleet Air Arm Crash records, have been gifted by
the MOD to archives where you have to pay to access them, and without the
involvement of the Records Decision Panel. He asked JJ to explain how public records
can be gifted away to archives where you have to pay to access those records.
JJ explained that we would have to look into the specifics of the case and that it would
be unfair to comment without having done so. He emphasised, however, that it is not a
common occurrence. You can find more information about the Records Decision Panel
here.
3.10 RB noted that responsibility for Freedom of Information (FOI) policy has moved
from the MOJ to the Cabinet Office. He asked JJ to provide more information about this.
JJ confirmed that FOI policy has moved to the Cabinet Office and that they are also
sponsoring the FOI Commission. He explained that TNA already works closely with the
Cabinet Office on a whole range of issues, and that from a day-to-day practical
perspective it will be business as usual in terms of our engagement with the Cabinet
Office.
4. Red Lists update – Roger Kershaw, Head of Audience Delivery, Advice and
Records Knowledge
4.1 A copy of RK’s presentation can be found here.
5. Date of next meeting: Saturday 21 November 2015, 12:30-13:45