Commons Sense

House of Commons · Westminster Hall

Access to Archives — [Esther McVey in the Chair]

16 November 2021 · 1 other contributor · 3,540 words

Opened by Chris Evans Labour (Co-op) Caerphilly

Responding minister: Nigel Adams

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Chris Evans raised concerns about access to archives — [esther mcvey in the chair] in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.

Key points

  • Cabinet Office actions have blocked access to the Broadlands Archives, which include papers and correspondence of Lord and Lady Mountbatten.
  • The archives were partly funded with nearly 2 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund and subject to a 1.6 million tax foregone by the Exchequer through the acceptance in lieu scheme.
  • The debate calls for legislation that ensures open access to historical records for researchers and the public in the digital age.

Key requests to Government

I ask the Minister to look at the case of the Broadlands Archives carefully and see the argument I am making: if we dangerously reduce access to archives, we will cause serious problems down the line. We need legislation that reflects our digital age and ensures open access to historical records for researchers and the public.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Chris Evans Labour (Co-op) Caerphilly

I am concerned about the Cabinet Office's actions in blocking access to certain archives that were bought with public money. Historian Andrew Lownie has fought legal battles for four years to gain access to the Broadlands Archives, which include papers and correspondence of Lord and Lady Mountbatten. The purchase was partly funded by a grant of nearly £2 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund and subject to the acceptance in lieu scheme, amounting to £1.6 million in tax foregone by the Exchequer. Taxpayers' money was provided on the basis that the archives would be open and accessible to researchers and the public, but access has been obstructed.

Other contributors (1)
  • Stewart Hosie SNP Dundee East

    That is now on the record, and I am sure that everyone will be content with that.

Government Response

Nigel Adams

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn on raising the issue and securing the debate. The acceptance in lieu scheme was set up under the National Heritage Act 1980 and further detailed in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. This scheme allows taxpayers to transfer works of art and other heritage items into public ownership in lieu of capital transfer and inheritance tax, securing important national treasures for the nation. The Cabinet Office or another relevant Department advises whether archives accepted through the scheme contain sensitive information that may need to be kept closed from the public to protect our national security, defence, and relations with international partners. Once the threat is deemed reduced, records will be made open to the public. Safeguards such as the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are in place to review records and decide whether they should continue to be withheld or opened to the public. In the case of the Mountbatten papers, fewer than 200 documents out of a quarter million have been redacted; these redactions are no more than a few lines in most cases. The university archives and other public institutions holding private archives are subject to the Freedom of Information Act just as Government Departments and the National Archives are. Cabinet Office officials have consulted extensively on which materials to withhold, and on what grounds. The redactions in the Mountbatten papers have been made to safeguard national security, positive international relations, and the dignity of the Crown.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy