Article 14 – duodecies of D.L. 30.6.2005 no. 115, containing urgent measures to ensure the functioning of sectors of state administration, tacked onto law 17.8.2005 no. 168, adds the following section (comma 3 bis) to article 42 of the Cultural Heritage Code: The Prime Minister’s Office [Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri] shall hold its records in its own historical archive in accordance with the decisions taken and the decree issued by the Prime Minister. The same decree establishes the procedures of conservation, consultation and access to records in the historical archives of the Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri.

In accordance with the worst Italian traditions, the parliamentary discussion of a law on a completely different subject (taking place, please note, at the height of summer) was used to approve an innovation previously put forward and blocked by the unanimous opposition of the scholarly community.

We shall not reiterate here the arguments put forward against the creation of separate archives on the basis of the soundest principles of archival science (e.g. by Antonio Panella) and are indeed prepared to admit the need for autonomy of the archives of the constitutional organs by virtue of their specific position. It is also recognized that independent archives exist by tradition in practically all countries for the foreign ministry and general staff, albeit restricted to records of an operative character, not least because the documentation they produce retains its practical utility for a long time.

There can instead be no justification for the archives of the Prime Minister’s Office, a body that operates in close connection with the other central bodies of government, with respect to which it performs a simple role of guidance and coordination in accordance with the terms of the constitution. The innovation introduced could in actual fact have made sense during the Fascist regime in that, under the terms of law no. 2263 of 24.12.1925, the head of government, accountable solely to the national sovereign, enjoyed full political authority and hierarchical superiority over the ministers, who were accountable to the same, constituted an independent constitutional organ, was the president of another (the Grande Consiglio), and was able to influence parliamentary proceedings through powers to set the agenda. In any case, no other country has provisions for the archival autonomy of similar organs.

Also to be considered are the practical difficulties to be encountered by scholars through being forced for the purposes of a single research project to visit different repositories, which could in principle apply different rules of access and consultation.

The supporters of the reform have endeavoured to justify it on the grounds of the logistic problems of the Central State Archives, which is now unable to accommodate new records. This spontaneously prompts the question of whether it would not have been preferable to strengthen that institution, with its fifty years of history and personnel of undisputed professional expertise, rather than thus violate the principle of the unity not only of the national archival system but also of the state administration.

Otello Pedini