Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Good morning. I welcome John O'Keeffe, who is the principal inspector in DOE, Jim McGreevy, who is the director of collections and interpretation at National Museums Northern Ireland (NMNI), and Sinéad McCartan, who is the head of collections, research and interpretation for NMNI. Jude Helliker from NMNI sends her apologies.

I invite the officials to make an opening statement. The purpose of the session, really, is to bring members up to date on where the working group's work stands. It is not a case of our rehearsing all the arguments, but we will have an opportunity for greater Committee discussion at a later date. We thank the officials for providing an update.

Dr Jim McGreevy (National Museums Northern Ireland): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for making the introductions and for the opportunity to provide this briefing to the Committee. The Committee received a briefing note from National Museums Northern Ireland and letters from Ministers Durkan and Ní Chuilín. Hopefully, those complement each other in conveying to the Committee a sense of how things stand at a high level. I will use the NMNI briefing note as the basis for a short presentation. The note touches on both the findings of the working group thus far and the current position of National Museums Northern Ireland in these circumstances.

The group recognised the very valuable work undertaken by Dr Dan Hull in 2011, which was a catalyst for a lot of the subsequent considerations. That provided an overview of the situation, so, building on that, the group has sought to bring more definition to the various issues that are arising. The starting point for the group's work was work undertaken by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) with and through the Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers (FAME). That work was essentially an information-gathering exercise as a pointer towards identifying the issues that needed to be addressed. I say it was an information-gathering exercise; it was quite an extensive and wide-ranging information-gathering exercise. The work did not set out to establish the quantum of material involved, so the figure that Dr Hull posited — 1·47 million — is still the group's working assumption of the scale of the problem.

If I may, I want to reiterate what was said in the NMNI briefing note. I want to give the Committee a sense of what it actually means in terms of scale. A total of 1·47 million objects is of a similar order of magnitude to the entire collection — not just archaeology — of National Museums Northern Ireland. On archaeology, it is roughly five times what National Museums Northern Ireland currently holds. Hopefully, that gives you a sense of what 1·47 million objects actually means in terms of what is held in public collections already. It is significant. Similar comparisons can also be drawn with the digital, paper and photographic archives, and so on, that accompany the objects. The scale of what we are trying to address is considerable.

The working group considered a range of issues which arise in relation to what it identified as the 1,825 archives which are currently out there and geographically dispersed. These are individual archives relating to individual excavations that have taken place over quite a long time period. It is important to emphasise that these archives are held by private archaeological companies. The working group has become aware that there is other material being held in the public sector as a result of publicly driven developments in recent years. The main issues that the working group has identified and that will need to be tackled include — this is very headline — the issue of legal title to the archives and material — ie, ownership. In law, the landowner on whose land the material has been excavated is the owner of that material. That is a major issue that spans all of these archives and all of this material.

Another big issue is the application of what we call retention and disposal criteria — ie, how many of those 1·47 million objects are actually worthy of long-term preservation in terms of their intrinsic value and so on. It is highly unlikely that any consideration has been given at this stage to that very fundamental question that will need to be addressed.

Other issues that the working group has identified include areas such as assessment of conservation requirements. There is a lot of uncertainty about the condition of the material and what the conservation requirements would be, going forward, to ensure long-term preservation. Of course, it is not just preservation as an aim in itself but preservation with a view to delivering public benefit well into the future. There is also the absence of documentation of that material to what we call a museum standard, lack of standardisation in approaches to documentation of the material and record-keeping by companies, lack of standardisation in storage containers and so on. As I have already said, the material is geographically dispersed, but the way in which it is stored is highly variable and is certainly not of a standard that we would like to see applied in a museum context.

The work that is required to drill down into each of those aspects and more — they are the main issues — is likely to require significant resource. The working group is currently considering a framework whereby the work might be undertaken. That would be part of a report to be submitted to, in National Museums' case, my board of trustees and, of course, the Culture and Environment Ministers in due course.

Given that the respective Ministers have stated their position, if I may, I will just reiterate National Museums' position. Our approach to collecting is what I would call managed collecting — ie, decisions on collecting take into account the consequences of bringing something into the collection. Usually, and certainly over the last 15 or 20 years, in National Museums terms, that means bringing in single objects or small groups of objects. In those case, issues such as the title to the object and the conservation requirements, storage requirements and documentation requirements — ie, the broad range of resource requirements — as well as its potential use for public benefit are all mapped out and considered prior to taking a decision on acquisition.

Probably the biggest example I can give you of an acquisition at a scale higher than that is an acquisition that we brought in at the end of 2010 relating to the White Star Line, which DCAL generously supported. That comprised something in the region of 4,500 to 5,000 objects. We established that it was worthy of retention, that its storage conditions and conservation requirements could be addressed, and, indeed, that we could demonstrably use it for public benefit. Of course, we also established that the person who was offering it to us legally owned it. That took quite some time. The acquisition was conditional on the vendor providing us with a full catalogue of the material, because we did not want to inherit a documentation backlog.

That gives you a sense of the type of approach that National Museums takes to acquisitions. It is relatively straightforward with small groups of objects, but even with something like 4,500 or 5,000 it is quite a rigorous process, and a lot of deliberation goes into it. I remind you that the quantum of material that we are looking at is potentially 1·47 million in regard to archaeological material. In those circumstances, the board of trustees cannot accept material into the collection. Acceptance would certainly be dependent on conditions that our resources cannot meet and are unlikely to be able to meet for the foreseeable future. That is not just the National Museums position, it is a position that is consistent within the museums sector, within codes of ethics and within the Northern Ireland museums policy. However, I stress that National Museums would like to continue working with DOE, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and others in an advisory capacity towards developing solutions to this major problem.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Do you have any other contribution you wish to make, or do you want to take questions at this stage?

Dr McGreevy: I think yes.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): OK, fine. We have a visit planned to the Heron Road resource facility for National Museums for the first meeting in January. Is that site fit for purpose? If not, what would be the requirements for an archive storage facility? Have you identified any alternative sites? We were down at Swords and saw what they had in a building. I cannot get my head around there being 1·5 million objects.

Dr McGreevy: Neither can we.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is a relief: I am not the only one, then. If you were to have that, what sort of space would it require?

Dr McGreevy: I will talk about Heron Road first of all. Heron Road essentially houses the collections of the Ulster Museum that were moved out prior to its redevelopment between 2006 and 2009. It houses those collections in their entirety. I made reference to the fact that roughly a fifth of those holdings are archeology. So the collections are quite diverse in their nature, their storage requirements and so on. Currently it is just about fit for purpose in terms of being able to accommodate those collections absolutely safely and absolutely securely in terms of security systems, environmental controls and so on. Long-term preservation of the material that is there is under constant review, and the material is insured. There is no capacity for additional material.

That is just the Ulster Museum. Bear in mind that National Museums also has responsibility for the collections at the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum and the Ulster American Folk Park. We have quite a dispersed storage estate. The other point about Heron Road is that National Museums' aspiration is to develop approaches toward greater public access to collections. When Heron Road was taken on as a storage facility, it was very much for the purpose of long-term security and safety: it was not for public access. The challenge for us is not just to consider possible additions to the collections but to develop ways in which we can provide access to collections that we have. The Swords facility holds the National Museum of Ireland's collections in their entirety, and the archeological collections are but one part of that. My understanding is that that facility is rented. I do not know what the National Museum of Ireland's long-term plans are in that regard, but they are, like us, looking at the whole question of public access.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Their intention or hope was to purchase.

Dr McGreevy: Yes, which is what National Museums Northern Ireland has done.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): So Heron Road is in your ownership.

Dr McGreevy: Yes.

Mr Cree: Gentlemen, I am fairly new to the Committee, so I am not shy about asking any question. I was intrigued by the museums policy that is quoted here in the report which we have from March 2011. It has words like:

and

of these sort of artefacts. What is actually happening on the ground in this area?

Dr McGreevy: Are you referring to the Northern Ireland museums policy?

Mr Cree: Yes.

Dr McGreevy: Intentions to improve and develop collections — certainly in the context of the policy, which is addressed to the entire museums sector within Northern Ireland, that was signalling gaps in the collections identified within the sector and how they might be addressed. It also had an eye on what we call contemporary collecting — ie, capturing recent history — and making sure that there is no duplication of effort and that there is a coordinated approach across the sector. That is a point that permeates this policy: it is the entire sector looking at these issues.

The approach that National Museums Northern Ireland has to developing the collections is a very targeted one. Increasingly, our starting points are public domain and public benefit, and particularly government agendas. So, for example, one of our areas in recent years has been seeking to address and contribute to the decade of centenaries programmes through exhibitions on the covenant, our history galleries and so on. So it is very much targeted, rather than being comprehensive and open-ended.

Mr Cree: It is all the one sentence. How have the standards of collection care in Northern Ireland been improved since 2011?

Dr McGreevy: Do you mean the standards of National Museums collections?

Mr Cree: That is what the research paper says:

Dr McGreevy: I can only speak on behalf of National Museums Northern Ireland. We have already discussed the Heron Road facility, which was a major step forward.

Mr Cree: Was that post-2011?

Dr McGreevy: We have undertaken further improvements at Heron Road post-2011, but the major improvements were effected in 2006-07 in advance of the move of collections from the Ulster Museum.

Mr Cree: What improvements, if any, have there been to the collections that are in private hands?

Dr McGreevy: I cannot answer that question. It is not a responsibility that National Museums Northern Ireland can address.

Mr Cree: It seems that it is nobody's responsibility, which is part of the problem.

Dr McGreevy: That is part of the problem.

Mr Cree: Is that too simple?

Dr McGreevy: It is everyone's responsibility and no one's responsibility.

Mr Cree: A final point, Chair. Where are all the artefacts that were dug up as a result of public authority work, particularly work by the government on roads and various developments and public works? Where are all those bits and pieces?

Dr John O'Keeffe (Northern Ireland Environment Agency): The point that you have just raised touches on the nub of the question: who is responsible, where are the objects now and what will happen to them in the longer term? From talking to colleagues in other Departments, I am aware that organisations like Roads Service are trying to group their materials into single places of storage. To put that into perspective in terms of size and the physical scale of this, from the report that we commissioned to try to identify the physical volume, we are looking at somewhere in the order of 700 cubic metres of material. That is just the physical volume. Depending on how you work that out, you are looking at somewhere in the order of 26 large shipping containers, or four to five times the size of this room going from floor to ceiling.

That simply compresses everything into a single volume. It does not include things like public access, ongoing conservation needs or any of those things. Members who were at the Swords facility will have seen the distinction between grouping everything together and putting it all into a tight box and ramming down the lid and the storage conditions that are required for the safe storage on shelving for the floor area.

So, first of all, it is a large physical volume. The issue about where the material goes to after the excavation and analysis have been completed has not been resolved. In a professional context, the Institute of Field Archaeologists operates primarily within GB but across the UK. The Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland talks about a final destination for the material — that, as the archive is formed coming out of the ground, it will have somewhere to go to in the end. The Republic of Ireland is very different compared to Northern Ireland. In the Republic, the state asserts its ownership of the material, so there is no question of whether it is a matter for the museums, the Department of the Environment or somebody else. There is a clear, identified owner, and as part of that clear, identified owner, this long-term storage issue has been or is the process of being resolved. It is not quite full of all its material yet.

We in the working group have recognised that the skills required to deal with that material are not always going to be the same as the skills that are required to dig it out of the ground in the first place or the skills that are required to repoint the walls of Carrick Castle or any other monument. A discrete skill set is needed. So, again, for public authorities that have acquired the material, we are not aware of any other part of the Northern Ireland Civil Service that employs curators to maintain archaeological collections that have arisen from mitigation or investigation works. Roads Service is one of the largest public bodies that deal with mitigation works that create part of the archive. If does affect others such as the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, where we look at some of the large Invest NI sites and so on, which have generated some significant and important collections and post-works finds.

So, in a way, the answer to the question is that we do not know where all of the material is, but we know where some is being held by public bodies. The vast majority of it is still being retained by companies commissioned to conduct the excavation work. That material is not being held in accredited museum-type institutions, so the regulation or improvement of storage conditions falls outside the statutory remit of both Departments.

Mr Ó hOisín: Thanks, folks, for that. Regardless of whether the archives and artefacts that we are talking about are found in the North or South, the Swords facility is very good. We had a visit to it not that long ago. How much of a change in legislation would be required for artefacts found in the North to be transferred to the South for storage purposes in the short term? It seems to me that the situation here is unbearable. Nobody has any idea what we have and where it is; if companies go into liquidation, it can be disposed of on a whim.

Dr McGreevy: I stand to be corrected, but I do not think that legislation is an issue. There is a mechanism for moving cultural material between jurisdictions, an export licence framework that would permit the transfer of material from here to the South. Am I correct in saying that it is not a legislative issue?

Dr O'Keeffe: Yes.

Dr McGreevy: I would actually go way beyond that. I do not think that we can lose sight of the public benefit dimension that we want to capture and deliver in relation to this material. It is difficult to conceive how a public benefit to people here could be delivered if the material is 100 miles away. It is not just that; there are other issues in relation to the material itself. There would undoubtedly be a cost. My understanding of the Swords facility is that the storage conditions that it offers are of quite high specification. I suggest that the bulk of this material, because of its nature, does not require that high specification. So there would be probably quite a large and unnecessary cost to the public purse by so doing. However, that only takes us so far, because corralling it — if I can use that term — is just the first step. The other issues that I referred to earlier on, such as assessing it, documenting it, the conservation requirements and so on would, of course, also have to be done 100 miles away from here, which I think, logistically and practically, would present quite serious problems.

Mr Ó hOisín: Yes, but the problem is that all the material that we have, other than the figure of 1·47 million, is unquantifiable in nature and type. You talk about Swords being high spec in its state of preservation, storage and what have you. What public benefit have we now when we do not know what is there or what it is?

Dr McGreevy: I accept that that is the case, but our aspiration would be to develop and deliver public benefits in a number of strands.

Dr Sinéad McCartan (National Museums Northern Ireland): The National Museum, just like National Museums Northern Ireland, has quite strict guidelines about what it brings into its collections, so it is in a very good position in that it can issue those guidelines to excavators in advance, because it knows where it is all going to go, as Swords is seen as the national repository. It issues advice notes, and, from speaking with colleagues in Dublin, I know that it assesses each and every archive in quite a lot of detail in advance to ensure that it is up to spec before it is brought in to Swords. The National Museum of Ireland standard has not been applied to the 1,825 archives that we know have come from excavations in Northern Ireland. That, in itself, would present an issue.

Mr Ó hOisín: It seems to me that there should be a freer flow of national archives North and South. I know that it is high profile, but it took nine years to get the return of the Broighter torc — the Broighter hoard — back to Limavady in Derry. I first worked on it back in 2005, so it was nine years before it came home. I know that it was subject to a very famous court case away back at the start of the other century. I think that there is a piece of work to be done to look at freer movement of archives.

Dr O'Keeffe: There is a relevant point about the material. It is important to note that we know what sites were excavated, and we know by whom they were excavated. We have reports that the Department of the Environment has taken in satisfaction of licence requirements about what was found. For the large portion of licences issued, those reports have been achieved. For whatever institution — North, South, east or west or any other — the material needs to be ready for the archive, and that point was made in Swords. This material, as it was generated from the ground, was not generated — as far as we can determine at this stage — with its long-term archive in the hand. We will certainly see concerns or problems — I do not know what the best descriptor is — in that the museum authority in the South owns the material that is there, and it can insist on it being brought to it in a certain way. Through negotiation or discussion, I am sure that there is a way of finding out how that material could be accessioned to whatever body that would be.

Of the material that is there at present, it is about who would pay to bring it to the deposition standard and then, ultimately, who is the owner of that material at that point in time. If it has come from Northern Ireland, there is the issue of a jurisdictional responsibility. Within Northern Ireland, the owners may or may not be identifiable. I would not anticipate that anybody is seeking to have the material returned to them if they were developing a site. It is an issue that I would like to see moved on. Those problems are there.

Any transport of material between jurisdictions is subject to some licence requirements, which would fall back again to the Arts Council in England for the transfer of material across the border. There are administrative mechanisms that need to be followed through, there is the export from the UK and import into the Republic for material coming backwards and forwards and, again, there are other administrative elements that exist within that.

Mr Ó hOisín: The Arts Council in England issues the licences required for movements within Ireland.

Dr McGreevy: Yes. The two-way movement of cultural material between here and a number of institutions is a regular feature of our business. We regularly borrow and lend material from the collections to institutions down South.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It is worth bearing it in mind that, when we were down in Swords, it was pointed out that, with their aspirations, the entire capacity of the place will be required for the artefacts that they have or will have in the Irish Republic. The idea of lodging with them is not particularly practical.

I am glad to know that the Broighter hoard came back, so William can now start on the recovery of the Shankill crozier. We will start to reclaim all the artefacts that are now south of the border and bring them back to Northern Ireland. That is an excellent proposal.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh agat, a Chathaoirligh. Thanks for the presentation. How do you feel about the lack of real interest? For somebody looking in from the outside, it could appear that nobody seems to care very much because there are all sorts of obstacles. How does it feel for you as professionals? What do you think is the greatest obstacle that prevents moving it forward?

Dr McGreevy: One very positive aspect of the working group is that it provides a mechanism for professionals from different organisations to share their expertise, thinking and skills. It is cross-cutting across Departments, which is very positive. What possibly lies behind your question is the fact that the working group can take matters only so far. It has made a considerable effort to identify the salient issues, but it can take it only so far. The group recognises the resource issues that this throws up because we deal with that daily. In our respective organisations, we face resource issues in this area as well as in others. We are very mindful of the budget situation. Whilst the extent to which the working group can shape and direct the next steps is limited, I hope, nonetheless, that it will be helpful. The group recognises that there are major resource issues and that that is a concern for all parties, actual and potential.

Ms McCorley: How optimistic are you about any positive action coming out of the report and the recommendations?

Dr McGreevy: One of the benefits of the report is that it will flag up issues, in the same way as Dr Hull's report acted as a catalyst for consideration. This is a further move in that direction. The working group is heartened by the opportunity to bring these issues to a higher level. As for how optimistic we are, the group has to be realistic about the prospects. The group is looking at a phased approach to addressing the issue because one big concern is that people are looking at the end point, which could be a number of years away. There is some hesitancy about accepting responsibility for that end point. Perhaps a more incremental approach might help to move things forward.

Mr Humphrey: Thanks very much for your presentation. I also sit on the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment was in front of the Committee the other day, when she talked about the importance of tourism to the Northern Ireland economy. You will be well aware of the importance, particularly in an economic downturn, and tourism can be hugely important in bringing inward investment, creating employment and generating wealth. Jim, you said that you had an aspiration to develop public benefits. When do you think that that aspiration will be delivered?

Dr McGreevy: The previous question was about going forward. My take on the situation is that an incremental approach is possibly sensible at this stage. Public benefit, certainly in National Museums terms, can be delivered at a number of different levels. The main mechanisms that National Museums has to do that are through its exhibitions and community engagement programmes. The academic world is within the public domain and the universities that are partners with us in that. What I meant about public benefit is that, as the group goes forward, or whoever takes the issue forward, public benefit must not be lost sight of. Opportunities to deliver public benefit should be identified at every stage in the process.

Mr Humphrey: Thanks for that, but I am not really sure that you answered my question. As for the incremental benefit and progress, you used the words "whoever takes the issue forward". Is there a doubt about who will take it forward?

Dr McGreevy: I do not think that it is a matter of doubt. A number of parties — if I can use that word — will be responsible for resolving the various issues. The degree to which they will be involved will depend on where we are at any particular stage in the process. Within the cultural infrastructure — if I can use that word — in Northern Ireland — not just the museum sector but the heritage sector under the Department of the Environment — there is an infrastructure that would allow us to use the material as it becomes clear what it is, how significant it is, what its relevance is, and so on, in myriad ways.

Mr Humphrey: When will we see the first steps of that incremental development and progression?

Dr O'Keeffe: In the letters that the two respective Ministers offered to the Chair, their position has been made quite clear on where they are with the issue of the archaeological archives. If we step back a little and think about the economic value of the historic environment in Northern Ireland, the report that was commissioned two years ago identified a value of some £500 million gross a year. That embraces everything from the castles and standing stones to attendance at museums, visits to historic churches and the support network of tour guides, coffee shops, overnight stays, and so on.

There is obviously a huge overlap between the tourism sector and the heritage sector. There are also big overlaps between the trade skills sector, the heritage sector, the education sector and a series of other places. We are dealing with parts of the problem. As a complete entity that is dealing with the excavation archive that has come from those development-led excavations, there is a whole host of potentials, from those who are very interested in archaeology and science in that category to those who have a passing or limited interest in archaeology, and skills are required across the board, be those construction skills, analytical thinking, participation or community involvement. In the longer term, it is quite clear from the two letters that there is no identified single vehicle or owner to take it forward.

Mr Humphrey: For me, that is the nub of it. I listened to both of you answer questions, and I asked a specific question. There is no mechanism to take it forward. I asked for even a first step in that incremental development, and I have not had an answer from either of you. So there is no mechanism to take it forward, and you do not know when it will start to go forward. We have not even got an answer as to when the first step will be.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I think, William, that the key point is that it is on the two Ministers' tables. The issue is the one that was flagged up: money. Neither Minister probably wants to put their hand up and say, "I am going to find the money for this". That is the core of the issue. I think that, in due course, we need to look, with the Environment Committee, at what can be done to bring the two Ministers to some understanding as to where responsibility lies and who should be prioritising it, because it is a hugely important matter. What priority do the two Ministers — each of them — give to the issue, what priority do they place on it, and where do they put it on their list of priorities? We have heard of inescapable commitments and things that are not inescapable. Therefore, we need to find out whether they are serious about this and whether they will face up to it. We are getting information from officials today, which helps to clarify the situation. As John said, it is down to the two letters from the two Ministers.

Mr Humphrey: Yes, and I am not being critical of you guys, but it is our job. You are giving us answers, but the mechanisms are not clear as to how you can get us to the point where we want to be.

I have a couple of quick questions. You have 1·8 million of objects in stock, and 23% of those are of international significance. About 55% of tourists are cultural tourists, so that is hugely important to Northern Ireland's diaspora, whether that be the United States, Canada, Australia or New Zealand — all those huge world powers that we helped to shape and mould as countries. Are we making enough of the 23% that have international significance?

Dr McGreevy: Again, from National Museums' perspective, I would make a similar comment to the one I made earlier about North/South. Parts of the collections of National Museums travel the globe and, in recent years —

Mr Humphrey: No, let me stop you there. Maybe I did not make myself clear. If money comes from that — I hope that it does — that is good, or maybe there would just be an agreement that things are shared around the world. However, I am talking about cultural tourists to Northern Ireland. Are we making the most of the 23% of artefacts that you have that are of international significance, which is the term used, to attract tourists here, to retain them when they come here, and to draw the maximum amount out of them while they are here?

Dr McGreevy: I will try my best to answer that very complex question. You make a very good point. There are two areas that I throw up as examples of how National Museums engages internationally through its facilities. The first and most obvious is the Ulster American Folk Park, which has a strong North American dimension and has, over the years, developed very strong, positive and supportive links. The other most recent example, which depends a lot on the extent to which the story of this place has an international relevance or interest, is the Titanic programme that National Museums developed in 2011 and that is still ongoing. By that I mean particularly the Titanic exhibition at the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum, which has garnered a huge amount of local and international interest.

Mr Humphrey: When I was on the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, I think that it was First Minister who came to the Committee and said that Titanic as a brand is known much better and is more readily identified in the world than the terms Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Irish Republic or whatever. We should be exploiting that more and more. Perhaps we will return to that when we visit, Chair, because I want to pursue it with you.

In relation to joined-upness and tourism, I think that both your organisations, John, and the museums have a key role. Take, for example, Carrickfergus Castle. Research suggests that a lot of Americans who come to the UK are mainly interested in gardens and castles. Is there a sufficiently joined-up approach in selling the tourism product of Carrickfergus Castle? It is a Norman castle, and there are not too many of those about the place. Are the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, National Museums, the Tourist Board, Carrickfergus council and the regional tourism partnerships joined up enough?

Dr O'Keeffe: The simple answer is no. There is work that we could do with those organisations. We have been doing a lot of work, but it is not quite hitting the mark yet.

Mr Humphrey: So who takes the lead on that, John? It is absolutely crucial.

Dr O'Keeffe: In the case of Carrick Castle, the Department of the Environment is the guardian of the site. The local authority is responsible for an awful lot of the activity in the town of Carrickfergus. In a place like Carrickfergus, the ideal would be that you come to the castle and to Carrickfergus. If it is simply a question of parking in the car park, taking a photograph and driving off, you could do that online. There is an overlap; we have taken on an awful lot more connections with the Tourist Board through joint marketing and the joint presentation of events. If you go on to the NI Direct website or the Tourist Board website, rather than having multiple points of access to these activities and being redirected five or 15 times, there should be a single portal to find that information. However, there is more work to be done with that. We will meet representatives —

Mr Humphrey: Sorry to interrupt you, but when you say "should have", do we have that portal?

Dr O'Keeffe: The Discover Northern Ireland website and the tourism website have improved a lot. As with any of those things, they could be developed further. However, it is much better than it was before. We share our events catalogue with the Tourist Board for it to be uploaded onto its website. By and large, a tourist is not going to think, "I want to visit a cultural site in Northern Ireland, so I better go to the Department of the Environment". In the minds of a lot of people, there is too much space between those two concepts. However, if you were to type into a search engine, "visiting Carrickfergus Castle", you would hope that that would take you to a principal visitor hub. That is where Discover Northern Ireland —

Mr Humphrey: Obviously, councils have a responsibility to promote the tourism package in their borough.

Dr O'Keeffe: They do. We need to develop that work further, bearing in mind our resource pressures, be that around the opening hours of the castle, the scope of activities —

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): May I come in on that? We are looking at archaeological archives. The important thing that William is getting at is that culture and cultural heritage are hugely important to Northern Ireland. Cultural traditions and cultural heritage play out here in a range of ways — some good, some sometimes not so good. We have huge opportunities to contribute towards building a shared and better future in Northern Ireland through better mutual understanding of different cultural traditions. In taking that forward, it is first about those three words that the Community Relations Council uses: equality, diversity and interdependence. If that is our vision for Northern Ireland, the cultural diversity element is hugely important. Secondly, there is the idea of a sense of belonging and people's sense of who they are. Cultural heritage has a role to play in people being at peace with themselves and with each other. Thirdly, there is the economic driver of tourism and the Ulster diaspora in North America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so on. Those markets could be tapped into. A number of people have an interest in maximising the benefits that accrue to Northern Ireland in all those areas. As a Committee, we will want to take a look at that. The visit at the beginning of January is an example of that.

I will throw this out as an example. A few years ago, a new copy of the American Declaration of Independence was discovered in archives in London. American visitors coming to Belfast could have had the opportunity to see an original first print copy of the American Declaration of Independence, whether it be in Titanic Belfast or the Ulster Museum. I am not going to argue about where it should be, but I would prefer the Ulster Museum. That is where it should have been. There are so few copies of the declaration and America is such a big place that the chance of people there seeing one is low. I think that we got it here, or there was talk of it coming here for a while, but it should have been here as a permanent exhibit. We should have laid claim to that. It was first printed by an Ulsterman, first written in the handwriting of an Ulsterman and Ulster thinking was behind it, with the Scottish Enlightenment and all those things. We should have these things here and be playing up rather than playing down Ulster's importance. We will want to come back to that issue, William. I know that John, Jim and Sinéad will have a role in contributing to that discussion.

Mr Humphrey: I have a final point. I absolutely accept the budgetary pressures that you are under, John, but at the same time they provide an opportunity for economies of scale if councils, National Museums, the NIEA, the Tourist Board and so on work collectively in a joined-up approach, which can mean savings rather than duplication and wastage.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you very much indeed for the thought-provoking and extended discussion.