Changes to The National Archives

Last week TNA announced a set of proposed changes to their operations and public services. They need to cut costs and save money. Specifically, they want to save £4.2 million by the end of March 2010. A consultation period will last until September, followed by a detailed planning process to be finished by January 2010, allowing the plans to be implemented until March 2010.

Does TNA expect to save £4.2 million in three months? I’m not sure how reasonable or otherwise that is, but what happens after that? Presumably, staff now on reduced hours or in unemployment will be left where they are. The lawns will continue to grow a little longer and the windows to remain a little grubby. Money will still be saved.

The change most likely to generate public debate is the proposed closures to the reading rooms and the reduction of staff. A letter to The Times from Dr Nick Barratt on 4 July is evidence of this. As the comments show, the other hot topic, unsurprisingly, is that of digital versus tangible access. There's nothing like holding an original record but while open reading rooms at Kew allow access for Londoners and those who can visit, electronic access allows records to be used by a much wider audience.

The other striking question seems to be: how necessary is the knowledge of “expert staff” to the public’s understanding of public records? Dr Barrett’s letter states: “Specialist knowledge is gained over years of experience, not delivered through search engines and digital images, and the scandalous treatment of such important staff is nothing short of dumbing down.” I don’t disagree. I do, however, hope TNA’s finding aids are sufficiently well-written to provide the advice and information necessary for most of TNA’s visitors to access, interpret and use the records they’re interested in.

I hope the money saved will go toward such things as wages that stay in line with inflation and the writing down of specialist knowledge into sufficiently detailed finding aids.