Official histories and public histories

Sir, – My colleague Prof Diarmaid Ferriter poses two important questions in relation to the new public history on British policy in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, including a commitment by the British government to allow between three to five historians, selected and overseen by an academic advisory panel, full access to state archives relating to the Troubles (“No line can be drawn under the Troubles for grieving families”, Opinion & Analysis, May 10th).

A first question is in relation to access. I have also been asked this question by some relatives of those killed during the Troubles. Why should some academics have access to material that is closed to the general public? Before the introduction of the Legacy Act, I had access to some documents released during inquests and other proceedings under legal disclosure. But important details are often redacted, and the material generally does not give vital political or security context which would enable families to understand how high-level policy making and security decisions may have affected the deaths of loved ones.

I have spent years researching the Troubles. In 2022 I received a letter from An Garda Siochána stating that my published research on the loyalist bombing of Belturbet 50 years earlier had “opened up several new important lines of enquiry”.

My research in relation to Belturbet and other loyalist bombings was based on some of the few intelligence summaries made available in the UK National Archives.

Interruptions undermine workplace focus and productivity

---

How long might commuters be waiting for the Dart to Drogheda?

---

From Nicola Coughlan’s hunks in landscaped gardens to Cillian Murphy’s gripping gangster romp: Patrick Freyne’s costume drama guide

---

Europa League final: Ally McCoist enjoys the Dublin buzz as Lookman KOs Leverkusen

---

The bulk of such reports have never been released for public view.

Current legislation governing the release of public material in both the UK and Ireland grants significant latitude for governments to not release documents in order to protect the life and rights of living individuals, their descendants or for national security reasons. This is long-standing policy and, in the UK case, has nothing to do with (in my view the rightly criticised) Legacy Act. Many files are currently not scheduled for release for decades.

As members of the advisory panel we will appoint rigorous, independent historians to sift through archives. We will also continuously review their work. Official histories in the past, in the UK and elsewhere, have seen the accelerated release of some materials to the public archive than would otherwise have been the case. We intend to also push for this in the case of the Northern Ireland public history.

What is the alternative to such a history? To refuse to test the British government’s commitment to release more information to historians and the wider public is to miss an opportunity. The reason why the term “public history” was chosen was because of a desire to engage with and share new information with the public throughout the coming years. If the government blocks or obfuscates we, as the advisory panel, will say so. The Legacy Act may go. But official histories, for all their imperfections, will stay. It is important to provide support and oversight to those historians who are selected to throw more light on British policy during the Troubles.

A second question put by Professor Ferriter is why a member of the advisory panel – quoted by Irish Times journalist Ronan McGreevy (May 7th) as saying that the panel will “keep asking awkward questions” – asked not to be named?

Mr McGreevy was in contact with Dr Caoimhe Nic Dháibhéid, the co-chair of the advisory panel for a public history on British policy in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, and wanted to know if I also wanted “to contribute to the article”. I believed that Dr Nic Dhábhéid, as co-chair, should represent the views of the panel, replying to Mr McGreevy – “I trust her to get the main points across. Thanks though”. We then went on to have a brief exchange, which included the quoted remarks published by The Irish Times.

I was surprised that my words were used, since I believed I had declined to contribute, attributed or otherwise. However, I am happy to confirm that “asking awkward questions” of the British government is exactly my intention in the coming years. – Yours, etc,

Dr EDWARD BURKE,

School of History,

University College Dublin,

Belfield,

Dublin 4.