Please find below an account of the meeting at the IHR to discuss the proposed changes at TNA.  I understand that a full account with possibly a recording of the meeting will be posted on the IHR site.

Regards

Ruth

Miles Taylor, Director of the Institute of Historical Research, chaired the panel which consisted of David Thomas, Director of Technology and Chief Information Officer at TNA, Oliver Morley, Director of Customer and Business Development at TNA and Colin Jones, President of the Royal Historical Society who did an excellent job of introducing the issues and outlining concerns about the proposed cuts.

Despite short notice the meeting was well attended.  It began with a Powerpoint presentation from David Thomas and Oliver Morley which I think they said would go up on the web.  The presentation emphasized the excellence of the current service, especially when compared to other national archives.  TNA claim (I think rightly) that it has the best delivery hours (apart from Scotland) of any national archive anywhere in the world, and said that even after introducing Monday closures it would still be (slightly) ahead of the next best.  Oliver Morley talked about increases in revenue generation and made a somewhat bizarre attempt to use Google Scholar to establish an increase in TNA citations in books and academic journals – I think he was trying to show that more academics were using the services than ever before. There were also mentions of digitisation projects achieved through partnerships with the academic community.  Nick Barratt asked why if partnership projects were important sources of funding the grants manager's post had been abolished but this was not answered for the same confidentiality considerations that have made it impossible to get firm information about which parts of the organization are most affected by the loss of posts.

TNA were very clear about the challenges they face.  They emphasized their role in leading the archives sector, citing the recent production of a business archives strategy, the success of which means that they will be working with 4 or 5 business archives who have approached them as a result of publicity given to the strategy.

The cost pressures of finding ways to archive born digital government documents were emphasized – the nature of the beast requiring earlier intervention than with paper documents simply to ensure that the record survives via migration.  Digital archiving also includes capturing snapshots of government websites, and stuff that is increasingly used by government departments like Twitter, Facebook and Youtube. I think they said that something like  £2.5m will be spent on data migration and digital preservation each year to ensure that digital documents are not corrupted.  The appraisal of things like emails was mentioned as a particularly difficult problem – sorting out the kind of material that should be preserved from the accumulation of less important material in the inbox.

A bar graph of funding figures showed running costs for 2009-10 take up £33m leaving £6m for investments and projects; next year, 2010-11, running costs would be £37m leaving £2m; the year after, 2011-12, was estimated to be £38m leaving £1m; and by 2012-13 running costs would be £40m leaving a deficit of  £1m. These were global figures - it would have been good to have an explanation of how they were made up, but it was said that the highest proportion of running costs went on salaries and utility bills. 

It was said that 80% of the cuts were 'back office' and would not impact on the public service. The remaining cuts were the ones we all know about – Monday closure, loss of 35 posts, car park charges.  It was pointed out that a 21% cut in opening hours as a contribution to an overall 10% saving seemed disproportionate. Similar comments were made about the proportion of the cuts to be carried by public services.  I asked – as I have done in the past – about where the axe on posts was to fall and whether it included loss of posts in ancillary areas like marketing and press office.  The answer, as before, was that this information could not be revealed because of confidentiality issues. 

Those present expressed high levels of support and sympathy for TNA and their appreciation of its services.  Many pointed out that their own institutions were faced with similar cost pressures and were having to make cuts.  However they also made it very clear that they believed that the consultation process was flawed, and that there should have been prior stakeholder meetings involving the research community before the proposals were formulated and made available to the public. The need to rebuild contacts and communication between TNA and the research community was emphasized by several people. 

Attendees were concerned about the impact of shorter opening hours on postgraduates and overseas visitors who need to undertake their research intensively over a short period of time. There was much support for the suggestion made by one attendee that TNA should have provided a range of possible models for cuts and the effect they would have rather than a 'take it or leave it' approach.  Various suggestions were made, including keeping longer opening hours but reducing the hours available for document ordering and exploring the possibility of seasonal opening hours.

Oliver Morley was clearly very upset by criticisms of the timing and nature of the consultation, saying that it had to end at some point, doubting the value of providing different models and pointing out that they had asked for viable alternatives and constructive comments. When it was pointed out that this was very difficult to do because of a lack of data, the response was that commercial sensitivity and the personal nature of the staff restructure precluded the release of further information.  Asked about the timing it was said that this was the summer because it had to be concluded in time for the next financial year.  Work had started in April/May.   

They recognized that  TNA was reaching the end of the commercial digitisation market - future funding would be from TNA budget or with partners – but TNA would have to be more 'hard-nosed' about partnerships in academic projects as they had found that their costs/overheads were not always covered in full.

Both delegates said they would take back all comments about better future consultation, and closer liaison with stakeholders for the future. They also said that late submissions about their proposals would be considered [formally, the consultation ends on 12 September]. Colin Jones interpreted this as a willingness to extend the consultation but TNA representatives did not confirm this.

Monday closure and car park charges are to be introduced from January, with staff changes taking place from now until February.