A move to make Parliament’s archives more accessible could do the opposite
3 min read
In June the search room of the Parliamentary Archives closed its doors for the last time as part of plans to relocate the collection to the National Archives (NA) at Kew. However, while this move is intended to make the Parliamentary Archives more accessible, there are concerns that the NA’s little-known ‘reclosure’ policy may result in records that were once readily available being removed from public access.
Since 2019 hundreds of previously open records have been subject to NA’s reclosure policy, which enables National Archive staff to withdraw access to public records through the retrospective application of exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – even though it is unclear whether Parliament intended for the exemptions to be used in this way. Although this policy has been in operation since 2012, the rate of reclosures has increased considerably in recent years, rising from just 45 in 2019 to 470 in 2023. Added to this are the many thousands more records that have been removed from public access and placed “access under review” while NA considers whether any of the FOIA exemptions apply.
Among the increasing volume of records made unavailable by this policy are a number that could be considered historically and politically significant; these include Foreign Office records relating to the Mau Mau Rebellion, Tiananmen Square; and the activities of Libyan terrorists in the UK. In 2023 the NA’s reclosure panel also withdrew access to a record from 1972 concerning the ‘black productions’ section of the Information Research Department whose activities were the subject of Rory Cormac’s book, How to Stage a Coup, published in 2020.
As well as reclosing entire records, NA’s reclosure policy also empowers staff to impose post-hoc redactions to material lawfully released under the Public Records Act. For example, in 2020 NA’s reclosure panel redacted an entire section of the cabinet papers for 27 May 1953 relating to the Regency Act, and an extract on the same subject (which also referred to press speculation about Princess Margaret) from the cabinet papers for 9 July 1953.
The policy also empowers staff to impose post-hoc redactions to material lawfully released under the Public Records Act
As well as cabinet papers, prime ministerial records have also been subject to reclosure and redaction. Earlier this year NA staff withdrew access to correspondence from the Wilson and Heath administrations relating to the appointments of Cecil Day Lewis and John Betjeman as poet laureate, while another prime ministerial record concerning the sinking of the General Belgrano during the Falklands conflict was removed from public access and placed under review by the reclosure panel in 2023, having previously been open since 2016. Although NA has yet to determine if any of the FOIA exemptions apply, this record remains unavailable to researchers.
Alongside the reclosure of government files, NA’s policy has had a significant impact on access to historical court and crime records, including those relating to cases that are well-known and extensively documented. Among the records that have been reclosed by NA in recent years are those relating to the Guildford Four, Peter Sutcliffe (J82/4193), and Rosemary West, as well as the prosecution of members of the Paedophile Information Exchange, and the celebrated brothel keeper Cynthia Payne.
Although the Parliamentary Archives team has been quick to offer assurances that it intends to retain full control over the access status of the collection after its relocation to the National Archives, historians and parliamentarians alike will be concerned that NA’s reclosure policy may undermine the improved public access this transfer is intended to facilitate.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
