For the previous update on January 15th 2005, click here
July 11th 2005
News from the General Register Office
The purpose of this email is to draw your attention to a statement
issued by Len Cook, the Registrar General, to clarify some
inaccuracies that appeared in some newspapers last week in relation
to the digitisation of registration records.
Best wishes,
Tom Walker
Registration Modernisation Communications Manager
The General Register Office
Southport
Digitisation of registration records
Statement from Len Cook
Tuesday, June 28 2005
The aim throughout our plans to reform civil registration has been to deliver a better, more efficient service to the public. Digitisation of records of births, marriages and deaths is an important part of that reform and is in line with Government principles on offering choice and joined up services to the public.
Over the past 12 months we have carried out a competitive tender for this work under normal European Union procurement rules. The contract now under discussion with Siemens Business Systems would allow digital images taken from the General Register Office's birth, marriage and death records to be encrypted and sent electronically to India for the production of an electronic index to all the records. The only bid we received to do the work wholly in the UK was several times the cost of the proposed contract.
Once the index records have been quality checked and accepted by the General Register Office in Southport, Merseyside, all images and data records will be deleted from any off-shore computers. The contract includes strict controls to ensure the security and confidentiality of the registration information and all work will be subjected to rigorous data quality checks.
Once the exercise is complete, all digital images will be held by the General Register Office and all certificates will continue to be issued from Southport
The plans to digitise the birth, marriage and death records involve three processes:
There has been much mis-informed comment about these plans. It is not true that the original registration records are to be transferred to India. Only digital images will be sent abroad so that key information for the indexes can be data-captured.
UK residents are not at risk of having their identities stolen. The contract with Siemens has very strict security and audit controls built into the process. This includes physical security of computer equipment and security checks and vetting of all staff. Employees are required to leave bags and belongings in lockers and cannot take them into the working area. They are also not allowed to take mobile phones, laptops or other electronic devices into the working area to prevent information being copied or removed illegally.
The 1,000 jobs in India are not being transferred from the UK. The proposed work will not create any permanent jobs, as it is a one-off exercise which involves a small amount of data capture work from each image on a large scale over a period of 30 months.
BACKGROUND NOTES
For the previous update on November 25th 2004, click here
January 15th 2005
In December the House of Lords and House of Commons Regulatory
Reform Committees issued their reports on the proposed Civil
Registration Regulatory Reform Order. The Federation of Family
History Societies has published extracts on its web site, and these
can be viewed via their Stop Press page at www.ffhs.org.uk. Basically there is
good news and not so good news: The order will not proceed, so
at present there will be no change to the
Civil Registration system as we know it in England and Wales.
Unfortunately this means that the planned transfer of "historical"
registers to Record Offices will not take place. The GRO will still
press forward with its reforms, but it is gratifying to note that
the time and effort taken by Devon FHS members and representatives
of FFHS resulted in a halt to the RRO on Civil Registration. The
GRO will have to take note of our concerns in its revised plans.
The genealogical community does have a voice!
Maureen Selley
Chairman Devon FHS
For the previous update on October 2nd 2004, click here
November 25th 2004
The following information is from the FFHS, concerning the Registration of Births and Deaths Order and the proposed changes to the availability and content of certificates.
I have written to Richard Ratcliffe, Else Churchill and Geoff Riggs, thanking them for their presentation on our behalf.
Maureen Selley
Chairman Devon FHS
Representatives of the FFHS were called to the House of Commons on Tuesday October 26th to present oral evidence to the Regulatory Reform Committee in support of our submission to Parliament on the Regulatory Reform (Registration Of Births & Deaths) Order.
As part of that evidence we were able to reinforce our concerns
about the proposed digitisation, concerning:
Our representatives returned to the House of Commons on November 2nd, to hear the evidence of Mr Stephen Timms MP Financial Secretary to the Treasury (who recently succeeded Ruth Kelly in that post).
The questions that he was presented with by the Committee focussed mainly on the transitional staffing issues, and whether the proposals for the reforms within the Registration system were sufficiently complex, substantial or controversial to justify a Commons debate on them.
In his answers he agreed that such a debate might be warranted,
probably after the Committee presented its First Scrutiny
Report.
It remains to be seen, however, whether that would benefit the
cause of family historians, or whether we might lose the potential
benefits of improved access and reduced costs if the debate
resulted in the proposals being withdrawn - if politically they
were seen as associated with the contentious issue of identity
cards, for example.
One reassuring aspect was that Mr Timms said he "was going to be reflecting on" the views expressed in the oral evidence from the National Council on Archives and from the FFHS, that the clause requiring registration documents to be adequately stored should be extended to include also obligations for their adequate preservation and access.
Interestingly, Mr Havard MP in stating that the proposals only covered England and Wales, not the whole of the UK, referred to a previous written answer from Mr Timms describing proposed changes on Civil Registration in Scotland and Northern Ireland that might be coming forward later this month.
The FFHS's concerns about the lack of sufficient detail in the
Order, such as in the areas of historic records and some aspects of
the digitisation process, were voiced by members of the
Committee.
Mr Havard stated they were being asked to make a leap of faith
because of the potential permissiveness (i.e. latitude) some of the
provisions would allow as currently worded.
Dr Naysmith MP raised the FFHS's concerns about whether there
will be enough funds available to carry out the digitalisation
exercise properly and about the degree of transcription error that
might occur.
In our opinion, this received the least satisfactory response from
the Minister who merely stated that "Those are exactly the kinds of
issues that are raised with any exercise of this kind" and that "I
think we need to resolve them successfully, as we have done
elsewhere". Mr Timms might have been basing this view on the
computerisation of post office counters with which he was involved,
whereas the genealogical community has a more jaundiced view based,
for example, on Qinetiq and the way the digitisation of the 1901
census was originally implemented, despite the concerns expressed
by the genealogical user representatives.
We will continue to keep you informed of all developments on
this Regulatory Reform Order. In the meantime, if you wish to read
the uncorrected transcript of Mr Timms's oral evidence, this can
now be viewed at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmdereg//uc1201-ii/uc120102.htm
Geoff Riggs,
Director of Computer & Internet Facilities,
Federation of Family History Societies
For the previous update in August 2004, click here
October 2nd 2004
Following consideration of the content of the Draft Order, this is the Society's response which was sent to the Regulatory Reform Committee. I have had a reply from the Secretary of the R.R. Committee, who assures me that it will be "made available to all members of the Committee."
M.Ps. on the R.R. Committee, together with their constituencies, are listed on http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/regulatory_reform_committee/regulatory_reform_committee_members.cfm
If you live in one of the constituencies listed, you might like to bring the matter to your M.P.'s notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the Regulatory Reform Committee,Dear Sir,
REGULATORY REFORM ORDER 2004 [Registration of Births and Deaths]
I am Chairman of Devon Family History Society, a registered charity with a membership of 5,400, all of whom study genealogy and family history.
In October 2003, on behalf of our members, I submitted a response to the document "Civil Registration - Delivering Vital Change" which may be seen on the society's website at http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/whitepaper.htm
The Society is gratified to note that the views of family historians and genealogists were taken into consideration when writing the RRO.
Our Society welcomes several of the proposals to reform the Registration Service that are contained in the White Paper. However, on behalf of our members, I wish to express concern over some of the proposals which I believe require further consideration.
With regard to historic records, the Society welcomes the decision to amend the white paper proposal on birth and death records. It understands that "modern" records will now be Birth Certificates less than 75 years and Death Certificates less than 25 years old. The proposal to supply the occupation on Birth and Death Certificates [21.8.5] is welcomed, but why it is still considered necessary to exclude the address on copies of Birth and Death Certificates [21.8.8]? Addresses are often available in newspaper birth announcements, death announcements, and also in obituaries and reports on inquests. The location of a birth or death is vital information, particularly when a common name is being researched. It mentions that the proposals are similar to the Scottish system. However the SGRO actually supplies all the information that is on the certificates.
The RRO is unclear about the preservation of the historic registers, i.e. those prior to 1935. Not all Archives Services have sufficient storage facilities or staffing to take in the registers. [6.12.6] describes how Local Authorities should consult with Record Offices. If local Register Offices retain the historic records, consistency of public access will be affected. The Society has heard that some local authorities are considering making an admission charge to the Register Office to view these records. This would result in inequality of access.
The plan to deposit historic records in Record Offices is supported. [6.12.9] Record Office staff have the expertise to care for archives and film them when required for safekeeping. However it must be recognised that this will put an additional burden of cost on their already overstretched budgets. To maintain consistency of access across England and Wales, the Society urges the Scrutiny Committee to obtain a commitment from the Government to provide sufficient funding to ensure adequate storage and preservation of these unique registers.
The proposed reductions in charges to access the central database [21.8.32] are welcomed, but will these charges continue at a fair level? The RRO does not give sufficient detail about the creation of the database, or about quality control and accuracy and these are matters of major concern.
The Society hopes that the Scrutiny Committee will obtain a firm commitment from the Government that there will be sufficient funding to digitise all registers from 1935-2005, not just those 1993-2005.
It is unclear which registers are to be digitised. The registers held by local Registrars are far more accurate and complete than the copies held by the GRO. It is hoped that the Scrutiny Committee will insist that the local registers are digitised, rather than the GRO registers. Primary sources (locally held registers) are always to be preferred over secondary sources (GRO copies of registers).
The 1901 census work undertaken by Qinetic, using overseas agencies for the data entry, has resulted in an unacceptable number of inaccuracies, noted and reported by family historians. Any work on the birth and death records of England and Wales should be done in the UK, with inputters who are familiar with UK names and places. The Society urges the Scrutiny Committee to insist that the accuracy of the indexes is of the highest possible standard. If errors are present at the time of digitisation and transcription they will never be located later.
[21.10.26] states that the digitisation of historic records represents an exciting opportunity. Devon Family History Society members look forward to having an accurate index of Birth and Death records, with high quality digitisation and a consistent and high level of accessibility.
May I urge the Scrutiny Committee to ensure that this is the end result of the RRO.
Yours truly,
Maureen Selley
Chairman Devon Family History Society
For the previous update in October 2003, click here
Latest News re: Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change
August 2004
Here is the latest news about the progress through Parliament of the proposed changes to Civil Registration in England and Wales. I am pleased to see that some of the responses from genealogists and family historians have been taken into consideration. Thank you to all members who responded. Devon FHS will consider the content of the Draft Order and once more respond appropriately.
News about marriage registration and access to certificates will be posted here as soon as it is available.
Maureen Selley
Chairman Devon FHS
Background
1. The consultation document 'Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change' was published on 10 July 2003. Almost 3400 responses commenting on the proposals were received, of which, about 2300 were from genealogists and family historians. This indicates the very real interest in this area of reform.
2. Responses from the genealogical community centred mainly on the proposals for changing the framework for accessing registration records. Whilst there was general support for the proposals to improve access to older records, there was widespread concern amongst genealogists and family historians about the proposal to restrict some of the information contained in registration records.
3. On 29 March 2004, Ruth Kelly MP, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, announced that a draft Regulatory Reform Order (RRO), containing proposals relating to the registration of births and deaths and access to registration records would be presented to Parliament before the summer recess. At the same time, she announced that presentation of the proposals relating to marriage would be postponed until early in the next session. This would provide an opportunity for the second RRO to take account of Parliament's wishes on the civil partnership legislation. A further Statement by Lord Filkin of the Department for Constitutional Affairs was made on 8 July. It announced a period of further consultation on an issue that concerns the absence of any proposal to change the legal requirement for marriage ceremonies to be either civil or religious.
4. On 22 July 2004 the Financial Secretary presented to Parliament a draft RRO and an Explanatory Document containing proposals relating to the registration of births and deaths, access to birth and death records and the organisation of the civil registration service. These final proposals include some revisions made in light of the representations received from respondents.
5. See the GRO website at 
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/aboutus/lookingahead/index.asp#0
Changes to the proposals following consultation
6. The following describes the changes the Government has decided to make to the proposals included in 'Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change'. Most of these relate to records management and associated issues. A full analysis of the changes made to the proposals in the draft Order is contained in chapter 21 of the Explanatory Document.�
Access to birth and death information
7. The consultation document proposed to introduce a new access framework based on the age of the subject of the record. Modern records would be classified as those relating to people born less than 100 years ago and historic records, those relating to people born over 100 years ago. It was also proposed that some information in modern records (address, occupation and cause of death) would not be publicly available but instead, would be restricted to those named in the record, their family, those given permission by the individual and those with prescribed access.
8. The Government has acknowledged the concerns expressed by respondents about the accessibility of registration information under these proposals and the practicalities of implementing them. It continues to believe however, that it is necessary to restrict access to some information contained in registration records to safeguard the privacy of those named in the records and their families.
9.�The Government has therefore decided to move from a person-based to a record-based access framework, similar to that in place in Scotland. It is proposed that it will be the date that a registration record is created that will dictate when the access restrictions would apply. Access to birth records would be restricted for 75 years and death records for 25 years. In addition, information about occupations would not be restricted. The Government has accepted that making this information available would not affect the privacy of the majority of people.
Classification between modern and historic records
10. The consultation document proposed to distinguish between modern records - those relating to a person born less than 100 years ago - and historic records - those relating to a person born over 100 years ago. Given the shift to a record-based model this distinction is no longer relevant in the context of the strategy for digitisation of records. The Government remains committed to making older records (birth records over 75 years and death records over 25 years) fully open. The digitisation strategy will need to reflect this policy shift and is likely to mean an open procurement for digitisation services.
Authorised Users etc.
11. The Government has decided to make some changes to the proposed list of Authorised Users to ensure that all those with a genuine need are classified accordingly, but not to make the list so wide as to introduce an unacceptable risk of disclosure or risk to personal privacy. All organisations who require access to registration records for legal purposes would become Authorised Users. The Government has also agreed that there is not sufficient justification for including genealogists in the list of authorised users. The concept of an authorised user was intended to assist those users who required high volume access to registration records. The Government has decided not to remove the requirement that authorised users should obtain consent to access the restricted information.
12. The list of individuals or bodies with access to the restricted information will be amended to include adopted persons and Adoption Support Agencies. These groups would be able to access the restricted information for the purposes of tracing birth relatives.
Fees
13. The consultation document proposed a fee of £6.00 for purchasing a paper copy. The Government has accepted that in some cases, the fee for a paper copy would not be less than the current cost of a certificate and has decided to lower the fee for obtaining a paper copy to £3.50. The fee for accessing a record on the national database would remain at £2.00.
Corrections and Updates
14. In the case of corrections and updates, genealogists and family historians were concerned about the proposal not to make available the original information. The Government has decided that where records have been corrected, the original information would be available to the same list of people as have access to the restricted information. In addition, the original information would be publicly available after the appropriate threshold along with information about address and cause of death.
15. For changes of name, it is now proposed that both the original and new name would be accessible on birth records to facilitate searching for and identifying records.
Next Steps
16. The Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Commons and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords will now consider the proposals. There are two periods of scrutiny, the first of sixty days and the second of fifteen days. After each period of scrutiny, the two Committees will each publish a report that will be made available publicly. It is likely that the first period of scrutiny will finish in early 2005. The whole process is likely to take about a year.
17. Both the Explanatory Document and the draft Order can be
found at
www.gro.gov.uk where they can
be downloaded free of charge. Please note however that the
Explanatory Document is over 300 sides long. Copies of the
Explanatory Document and draft Order can be purchased from GRO at a
cost of £10.00 and £5.00 respectively. Please send a
cheque or postal order for the relevant amount, made payable to
ONS, to 
Lorraine Cole, Civil Registration Review, General
Register Office, Trafalgar Road, Southport PR8 2HH. Alternatively,
payment may be made by debit or credit card by telephoning 
0151 471
4514.
October 2003
Please read Devon Family History Society's response
to
CIVIL REGISTRATION: DELIVERING VITAL CHANGE
The consultative document was published on 10th July. Some proposals will severely restrict our research as family historians and the document needs to be read carefully. The main sections most affecting genealogists are chapters 6-8, and there are additional proposals which will affect families as well as family historians.
The Society's response is copied below. If you wish to support it, please write to:
Lorraine Cole, Civil Registration
Review Consultation, Room 126, General Register Office, Smedley
Hydro, Trafalgar Road, Southport, Merseyside PR8 2HH
Or e-mail: 
Mention that you have read the Devon Family History's response
to "Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change" and as a DFHS
member, you wish to support the comments made and have your
response counted. The final date for responses is 24th
October 2003.
Maureen Selley Chairman Devon FHS
To purchase a copy and make your own response, send a £10
cheque payable to ONS to:
Civil Registration Review Consultation, General Register Office,
Room 126, Smedley Hydro, Trafalgar Road, Southport PR8 2HH, or pay
by credit card on 0151 471 4514. Its 350 pages
can be downloaded via http://www.statistics.gov.uk/registration/whitepaper/
and send your own individual response.
Annex 1
Response form
| Respondent details | Please return by 24 October 2003 to: |
| Name: Mrs Maureen Selley (Chairman) Organisation: Devon Family History Society Address: Windyridge, ������������� Plymouth Road, ������������� Horrabridge, Town: YELVERTON ��������� Devon PL20 7RL Telephone: 01822 853687 Fax: E-mail: maureen.selley@ntlworld.com |
Lorraine Cole Civil Registration Review Consultation Room 126 General Register Office Smedley Hydro Trafalgar Road Southport Merseyside PR8 2HH E-mail: registration.review@ons.gov.uk |
DEVON FAMILY HISTORY SOCIETY has 5,500 members and the Society is a member of the Federation of Family History Societies. The Society's aims include promoting the study of genealogy and history, and encouraging the preservation and transcription of relevant documents and records.
The integrity and preservation of records relevant to current and future research and the access to these records are all under threat if some of the proposals in "Civil Registration - Delivering Vital Change" are introduced in England and Wales.
Members of our Society researching their family
histories are mostly amateurs, although some are professional
researchers. We welcome easier access to the proposed "historic"
registers. Our concern, on behalf of our members who are looking
for information about families and individual ancestors, is that
the proposal the restricted access to information in "modern"
birth, marriage and death records will seriously hamper their
efforts in the future.
Maureen Selley Chairman Devon FHS
'Through life' records
In respect of the proposals to create 'through life'
records by linking registration records:
86. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?
Great care should be taken when information is given by family members under stress at a formal registration. Incorrect links can only be corrected if people researching those families have access to linked information held on them. Ages, names and other details are often incorrectly remembered.
87. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably expect to continue?
Linking information in the future is welcomed, but if only in England and Wales, it will be of limited use.
88. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.
The burden of providing proof of linked individuals is one that should be carefully investigated.
89. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?
Making links retrospectively will be a costly exercise which will probably prove to be of very limited use, and thus a waste of taxpayers' money. It would be better to spend available funds on creating through life records for future events, based on births registered after Vital Change comes into force.
90. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?
Only in the future.
Correcting and updating records
In respect of correcting and updating
records:
91. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?
As family historians doing a lot of research,
we already know that existing indexes to births marriages and
deaths contain errors. What safeguards will be in place to quickly
and easily correct errors?
The 1901 census transcriptions, undertaken by people unfamiliar
with local names, places and occupations, have shown many errors
which have been identified by family historians.
The database should link to the original, with an image of the
certificates available. Family Historians will only welcome the
opportunity to access information on the Internet if it is
accurately presented as a reliable source.
Otherwise current protections might not be maintained.
Access
In respect of accessing registration
records:
101. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?
Some of the proposed protections are far too restrictive. Access governed by the age of the individual is unnecessarily prohibitive. Proof of the abuse of information relating to privacy and fraudulent use have not been quantified. "A sledgehammer to crack a nut" comes to mind. The example re: protection from domestic violence is an anomaly. A husband or partner of an abused woman would have access under the proposals, as would close family members. An example is given of persons targeted because of their occupations. The significance is directly related to the date of the record, not the age of the individual. The information would still be restricted many decades on, when any such danger would have long ceased. Why withhold the fact that someone was a plumber in Exeter when he married in 1955? More sensible access should be based on 75 years for birth, 50 years for marriage and 25 years for death. If restrictions were placed only on the electronic database entries, personal applications at an appropriate centre would enable more recent records to be accessed by honest researchers, with the appropriate items of identification. If the certificate is not theirs, the copy could be stamped in some way to prevent any fraudulent or misappropriate use of the records.
102. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably expect to continue?
The proposals will definitely prevent
individuals exercising their right and freedom to find out about
their family. Without occupation and address, it will be difficult
to positively identify a recent ancestor or distant relative.
Adopted persons have the right of to know their true parentage,
this must also be the right of those not adopted. Many people do
not have the time or skills to discover if another person is a
relative. The proposals will restrict the opportunity to engage a
volunteer, an amateur or a professional researcher to discover
possible family members. Personal research will be unnecessarily
restricted by the need to provide proof of relationship. This can
only be proved after the full information on
certificates has been accessed.
It will also make it extremely difficult to obtain information for
cases of intestacy.
Although there is a claim that the quality of the GRO holdings for
the last 70 years is 'good', there is reason to believe that the
quality of the marriage records held by the GRO is significantly
worse than births or deaths. The new proposals would mean that in
practice many marriage entries which are either missing from the
GRO or are mis-indexed would effectively disappear from view
altogether, perhaps for several decades.
103. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.
The proposals actually state that genealogical
researchers are the main bearers of these burdens. It is
accepted however that genealogists carrying out speculative
searches to find members of their family would not be able to
access the full record and would therefore not have access to as
much information as they do now (para. 6.4.28) The Minister also
considers that groups such as genealogists cannot expect to enjoy
the same level of access to modern records due to the security
concerns described (para. 6.4.85).
There are in excess of half a million family historians in UK, many
belonging to Family History Societies. Devon Family History Society
has 5,500 members, and this proposed burden is not fair or
desirable and is certainly unbalanced. There will be a burden on
local authorities to provide restricted access to modern records.
There is no money available to enable them to impose the
restrictions to modern records which are not in electronic form.
The proposal that restricts details of an address, occupation or
cause of death on a death certificate introduces the concept of
privacy for the dead. A blanket 100 year restriction on this
information is unreasonable. Why should a cause of death be
embarrassing to the family in this day and age? There is much more
acceptance of what would be previously called "social diseases"!!
And why is privacy threatened by knowing the birthplace, address
and father's occupation for a child born 50 years ago?
These restrictions are not found in countries with similar
registration systems to our own. Those based on the English system
such as the Australia or New Zealand have introduced changes to
prevent with fraudulent abuse yet they are not as restrictive as
those suggested England and Wales. The Scottish Registration System
is separate from that of England and Wales, but there must be the
same supposed problems of fraud. The excellent
http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/ website allows family historians
to view full certificates for marriages up to 1927, deaths up to
1952 and births up to 1902. Later records can be fully accessed in
the Edinburgh office of the Registrar General for Scotland. Family
historians in Scotland will be better served than their neighbours
in England and Wales. WHY?? Hundreds of thousand of family
historians will find it far more difficult to identify a potential
ancestor, or indeed a distant cousin, as certain key points of
information currently available on the paper certificate will be
withheld from the data base.
As more families become aware of common genetic illnesses that
might afflict them, information concerning the cause of death will
be closed to only a few direct family members leaving the wider
range of relations unaware of a potential risk.
104. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?
Devon Family History Society members welcome the proposals that viewing details from the database will be cheaper than purchasing certified copies.
Historic records
In respect of historic records:
111. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?
Protection is maintained for the majority of individuals concerned, as these persons will be over 100 years old with relatively few still alive. Information about those living individuals will be as readily available as it is today as the full information currently recorded on their certificates will be made available, and hence protection will be maintained as it is today.
112. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably expect to continue?
The proposals concerning a database of historic
records are welcomed, as they will enable more people to exercise
their freedom to trace their ancestry by allowing greater access to
the records on the Internet.
We welcome greater access and would emphasise that the original
local records should be preserved. This should include
locally held indexes.
When the data base of historic records is created, great
emphasis should be made on ensuring accuracy of and easy access to
the database. Access to the original certificates should still be
allowed, to enable checking. Ideally images of the originals should
be available at a small charge, similar to the 1901 census.
Problems caused by the volume of use should be carefully
considered. A users' advisory panel, including FFHS and SOG
members, should be established and their views should be heeded, to
prevent a fiasco similar to the 1901 experience.
113. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.
Given falling resources for archive provision it is possible that holders of these archives may not be able to carry the burden. If the burden of looking after these records prove too expensive for local authorities, many original historic certificates deposited in local record offices or held in register offices may not be made available for inspection, as promised.
114. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?
There are Record Offices that at present do not have the funding to store the large number of historic records, let alone the space. If costs are to be borne by Local Authorities, some less affluent areas will suffer, when priorities for spending are fixed.
Registers
In respect of the proposals for handling existing
registers:
117. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably expect to continue?
Indexes should continue to be produced locally, obviously in a database.
118. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens
It will be difficult for the existing
Registration Service to deal with requests to provide restricted
data from existing modern registers before the database is
established. The data should be FULLY AVAILABLE until the completed
database goes online.
The registration service should provide a photocopy to enable the
researcher to decide on its contents, rather than the
unsatisfactory system of transcribing certificates.
119. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?
In the interim period, until the database is online, UNCERTIFIED copies, stamped as such, should be made available at the cost of photocopying, on plain paper.
Supplementary questions
In respect of 'through life'
records:
S5. Do you have any views on the proposals for accessing the linking information on 'through life' records?
The proposal to link "through life records" is
welcomed, but as experienced researchers, we are well aware of the
difficulty of doing this. It is what we do! Access to
retrospective linking should NOT be restricted to Authorised Users
or the person immediately concerned. Family historians should be
able to access the linked records and individuals should ensure
their personal linked records are correct.
As Family Historians, we ask that great care is taken when
information is given by family members under stress at a formal
registration. We can quote many instances where ages, names and
other details have been incorrectly given.
Linking information in the future is welcomed, but if only in
England and Wales, it will be of limited use.
In respect of accessing registration records:
S6. Do you have any views on the proposed definition of family in respect of accessing registration records?
The definition of family members should be broadened to include at least nephews and nieces and more distant blood relatives such as great-nephews and nieces, second cousins perhaps. It is difficult to see how proof of relationship can be given without using the information that will be restricted. How the Registration service will cope with all the potential family members asking to see the restricted information? Will they have time to study their family trees? At present there is no "through life record" to prove relationship, so the family historian's research is the only proof.
S7. Do you have any views on the proposed list of Authorised Users?
6.4.19 Although it is proposed that family members should have access to the restricted information on registration records, it is not proposed that they would be able to give consent for others to access it. This prevents people from engaging others to do their family history research, for whatever reason. People living overseas or "out of county" often contact family history society members to work on a reciprocal basis. If only professional researchers are deemed to be authorised, those on a limited income would be victimised, as they would not be able to afford the fees requested.
October 2002
CIVIL REGISTRATION - VITAL CHANGE
At the Devon FHS's AGM I was asked to comment on the proposed changes to Civil Registration in England and Wales and include information so that members can write to their MPs. Your first rule of research is consult the primary source. The White Paper is £12.50, and is also available on the internet at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/registration/whitepaper/downloads/wpeng.pdf
Ideally you should look at the full text of these important proposals, make your own judgements and respond accordingly. Articles in April and July 2002 editions of Family Tree Magazine, in the August/September 2002 edition of Family History News and Digest and on the FFHS's website provide useful comments. Below and overleaf are some observations you might like to consider. Maureen Selley Chairman Devon FHS
Good news:
But:
A few extracts from the white paper:
"Civil Registration records date back to 1837. The older ones are of interest to genealogists and more recent ones are widely used by Government and other organisations." (p 7)
Incorrect! Older records are consulted almost exclusively by genealogists but they also buy recent certificates.
"The Government has considered access to civil registration records, balancing the need for privacy and openness. The full historic records (those relating to people over 100 years of age) will be available. For records relating to younger people, the majority of the record will be available, as at present, but access to information on addresses, occupations and cause of death will be restricted." (p 7)
Younger - 99 years old? The proposed restrictions on access are an obstacle to genuine genealogical research.
5.3 "The Government is considering establishing a system for record linkage of existing records." (p 25)
Almost impossible to do retrospectively, anomalies will be identified but not rectified! Births, marriages and deaths are not recorded consistently by name and only apply to events in England and Wales.
5.4. Maintaining the quality The registration service in England and Wales has a good reputation for completeness, accuracy and integrity of the records it creates and maintains. These are qualities that the now antiquated paper-based system achieves through rigorous checks, tightly drawn legislation and good administration. (p 25)
Quarterly returns held centrally have been proved unreliable - see "Comedy of Errors Act 1" published 1998 and "Comedy of Errors Act 2" published 2002. If new records are created from the centrally held information, they will be flawed. The primary source is held in the local Register Office, GRO records are secondary or tertiary records.
6.1 "The most popular response to balancing an individual's privacy with public interest was to restrict access to recent records those relating to people born less than 100 years ago." (p 29)
The actual question posed (16) was: "How should the balance be struck between an individual's privacy and public interest in registration records?" And the answer "The most popular suggestion for balancing privacy with public interest was to restrict access to recent records"
Recent? Was "recent" defined? I would judge recent to be in the last 20 years, not the last 100!
6.2 "Currently, the law allows anyone to purchase a birth, death or marriage certificate of any event provided that it has been identified in an index." (p 29)
Birth certificates of people born less than 50 years ago, and death certificates for these people where they died aged 16 or under are not issued at all unless the applicant can either supply all the details which appear on the certificate, or can provide a good reason for wanting it. They must also produce proof of their own identity. The legislation is already in place. The whole problem of fraud could be overcome at a stroke if UNCERTIFIED copies were issued, except where expressly required - and issued under carefully investigated circumstances.
Try to look at the whole White Paper (60 pages). How
will these proposals affect your research?
Devon FHS has responded, but what do you think, what can you
do?
Write to your MP at
House of Commons, Westminster, London SW1A 0AA
Send copies to Lorraine Cole, Civil Registration Review
Programme, General Register Office, Smedley Hydro, Trafalgar Road,
Southport PR8 2HH or
�and also to
Richard Ratcliffe FFHS (Archives Liaison) , PO Box 2425,
Coventry CV5 6YX or
If you live abroad, send your comments to
Ruth Kelly, Minister for the Office of National Statistics,
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
BIRTH REGISTRATIONS
TABLE A
Contents of current register entry which will
REMAIN PUBLICLY AVAILABLE:
Registration district/entry No.
Date of birth Place of birth
Name and surname Sex
Name and surname of father
Place of birth of father
Name and surname of mother
Place of birth of mother
Maiden surname of mother
Surname of mother at marriage if
different from maiden surname
Informant's name if not mother/father
Informant's qualification Date of registration Name of registrar
Name given after registration and surname
TABLE B
Information currently in the register where
ACCESS WILL BE RESTRICTED where the individual is under 100
years of age:
Occupation of father Occupation of mother
Usual address of mother Informant's usual address
MARRIAGE REGISTRATIONS
TABLE A
Contents of current register entry which will
REMAIN PUBLICLY AVAILABLE:
Registration district/entry No.
Place of marriage Date of marriage
Name and surname of the groom
Age of the groom Marital status of the groom
Name and surname of father of the
groom plus whether deceased
Name and surname of the bride
Age of the bride Marital status of the bride
Name and surname of father of the
bride plus whether deceased
Where married
Under what marriage conditions
Name and surname of 1st witness
Name and surname of 2nd witness
Name of celebrant Name of registrar
TABLE B
Information currently in the register where
ACCESS WILL BE RESTRICTED: where the individual is
under 100 years of age
Rank or profession of the groom
Address at time of marriage for the groom
Rank or profession of the father of the groom
Rank or profession of the bride
Address at time of marriage for the bride
Rank or profession of father of the bride
DEATH REGISTRATIONS
TABLE A
Contents of current register entry which will
REMAIN PUBLICLY AVAILABLE:
Registration district/entry No.
Date of death Place of death
Name and surname Sex
Maiden name of woman who has married
Date of birth Place of birth
If female and married/widowed name and occupation
of husband
If <16 names and occupations of father and mother
Name and surname of informant
Informant's qualification
Name of person who certified death
Date of registration Name of registrar
TABLE B
Information currently in the register where
ACCESS WILL BE RESTRICTED: where the individual is
under 100 years of age
Occupation Usual address
Informant's usual address
Cause of death
CIVIL REGISTRATION - VITAL CHANGE
How the restrictions will affect your research.
"Annex C: Access to birth, marriage and death
registration records and their contents.
There will be no restrictions on accessing registration
information relating to individuals over 100 years of age. For
registration information relating to individuals under 100 years
old, each item of registration data will be defined as public or
restricted. The restricted items are a small sub-set which is
considered to be too personal or which could put the persons
concerned at risk or open to unwarranted contact from commercial
companies." (pages 54-55)
On the left are the proposals relating to information contained in Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates. They have been taken from pages 56-57 of the Government's white paper and tabulated for ease of use. I have ONLY included Tables A and B relating to information currently available. Some information listed appears only on the more recent certificates. Tables C and D refer to the proposed contents of new register entries for births, marriages and deaths. These tables are not included here.
The government will create a central database, using civil registration and divorce records, to provide "a through life record" for individuals. That, of course, is what we do and we are experts at it. And we know how difficult it is, even with the full information.
Restricted information (see left) will be available only to individuals and their families, but "family" has not yet been defined. Are step relatives, spouses' families, distant cousins many times removed, part of our family? We are often unable to state that the certificates relate to OUR family until AFTER we have purchased them!
Lay out your collection of certificates, post 1905. Use "post-it" stickers to cover the information which will be unavailable and consider the effect on your research, if these details had been unavailable to you at the time of purchase.
BIRTH REGISTRATIONS
Note that the place of birth WILL be available, but the mother's
and informant's addresses WILL NOT be available. In the early
20th century, if the child was born at home, this was
often the mother's and the informant's usual addresses, so an
anomaly exists here.
Informants who are not parents are often family members and their addresses can link family groups. Occupations are a vital part of research, helping to build a family record. Service details given on birth certificates during wartime, with usual peacetime occupations, can provide a link that would otherwise not be made.
MARRIAGE REGISTRATIONS
Rank or profession of participants and addresses at time of
marriage are vital to our research.
DEATH REGISTRATIONS
The restriction on occupation of the deceased will prevent the
identification of a possible industrial disease. The cause of death
could be hereditary, accidental, or even uncover a suspicious
death. Without an informant's address, contact cannot be made to
discuss suspected hereditary conditions with a possible family
link.
Family Records Centre October 2001 Survey
From 114,709,802 births, 44,284,255 marriages and 86,230,927
deaths, a total of 245,224,984 available certificates, less than
0.3% were bought per year.
This page last revised Monday, 11 July
2005
Copyright © 2008 Devon Family History
Society
