Sir, – While I agree with the majority of Diarmaid Ferriter's article ("Case for releasing State papers after 20 years is not clear cut", October 24th) vis-a-vis the practical problems in making State papers available to the public under a new 20-year rule, I think we must consider the bigger picture.
The simple fact remains that notwithstanding practical issues involving access to government papers, the British government’s decision in 2011 to introduce a 20-year rule means that it is absolutely imperative that the Irish Government follows suit.
Let me give just one example. My forthcoming monograph on CJ Haughey, Anglo-Irish relations and Northern Ireland deals with the 1980s and early 1990s. I explore the British and Irish governments’ (mostly clandestine) involvement with the early stages of the Northern Ireland peace process.
In relation to London’s role, I have managed to examine numerous files from the National Archives of the UK that deal with the mid- to late-1980s. However, due to the current 30-year rule I have not been able to view any Irish State papers related to this period.
The result it that I have been forced to rely on mostly interviews, newspapers and published works to form the basis of my analysis of this aforementioned subject area.
As a contemporary historian this is naturally very frustrating. But what else can I do? Should I not write about this period until the Irish State papers become available? Some might say yes. Yet this is to miss the bigger picture.
We can moan all we like and debate the pros and cons. But the fact remains that if we don’t catch up with our British counterparts in relation to the 20-year rule the history of modern British-Irish relations may be written without adequate input from “official” Irish channels.
To put it simply – we all need to play on a level playing field.
– Yours, etc,
DR STEPHEN KELLY,
Department of History and Politics,
Liverpool Hope University.