In response to Peter Malone’s recent correspondence, it’s encouraging to see him acknowledging the plan to investigate the British approach in Northern Ireland throughout the Troubles as an “official” history, rather than a “public” one, as inaccurately portrayed. I hope others soon follow suit and dismiss this misconception.
However, I find it hard to agree with his notion of drawing parallels between this and Ronan Fanning’s examination of the Irish Department of Finance from 1922-58. The circumstances in which Fanning’s work was authored considerably differ, as the government that commissioned it wasn’t simultaneously executing legislation that was received unfavourably by the public. The legislation in question restricted the victims’ families’ access to archives pertaining to the institution he was researching while providing Fanning privileged access. All documents he encountered were eventually made public under 50-year and 30-year release rules.
The project’s dissension from the academic community can be attributed to this context pertaining to the British government’s Legacy Act. This reasoning also elucidates why no scholar currently engaged in any Northern Irish university has affiliated themselves with it. Even though the project isn’t a literal portion of that Act (despite Lord Bew, the project’s co-chair, favouring its inclusion), it unmistakably constitutes a part of the broader legacy procedure.
Where similarities could potentially be drawn with Fanning’s work is in illustrating how a ruling body can manipulate the narrative of its official history. For instance, in the early 1920s, among the Department of Finance’s largest efforts were centered around compensation schemes for damages incurred to property and individuals from 1916 to 1923. The files regarding these schemes are still in the process of being made publicly accessible.
Fanning didn’t have the privilege of examining these files, and his book includes limited mention of the administrative components of these initiatives. When his research was conducted in the 1970s, the time gap from the Irish revolution was akin to the period from the early Troubles till now, and these files were presumably considered too sensitive for an official historian.
However, Fanning retained the copyright to his work, providing him the freedom to publish elsewhere if his writings were disapproved by the Department of Finance. Unfortunately, the Crown maintains the copyright to British official histories, granting them the power to postpone publication, a precedent set by Margaret Thatcher with Sir Michael Howard’s official account of strategic deception from the World War II era.
Although we might wish for the official history to be penned by highly competent and meticulous historians, as it currently stands, these roles are yet to be announced, let alone occupied. It’s important that before any such appointments occur, there’s clarity on how ethical approval will be obtained; the strategy for collecting, preserving, and retaining data; pondering the potential dangers to researchers or subjects and means to counteract them; along with preserving intellectual property rights.
An improved approach could be to disassociate this from the official history series, perform a comprehensive exploration of all archives (similar to the Hillsborough stadium inquiry) and direct funding via the UK’s research councils. Meanwhile, if Labour, as anticipated, eradicates the Legacy Act, that particular disrepute will be eliminated and a project of this nature may have a shot at securing legitimacy.
Yours sincerely,
Prof. Marie Coleman,
Professor of Twentieth Century Irish History, Queen’s University Belfast.