| Home Page | Search the Society's Website |
|
|
General Register Office: Registration Review 2002 |
The Society of Genealogists has responded to long awaited General Register Office Registration Review. This is a government white paper outlining policy and plans to reform the existing legislation concerning the registration system using the recent Regulatory Reform Bill. This paper entitled Civil Registration: Vital change. Birth, marriage and death registration in the 21st Century follows the responses to the consultation document Registration: Modernising a vital service in September 1999 to which the Society also responded. Within this review are proposals concerning access to the Historic Records and changes in the information to be found on records less than 100 years old.
The Society of Genealogists has represented the views of genealogists since its foundation in 1911. Today its membership stands at over 15,000 and, as the largest genealogical society in the country, the Society takes an active lead in the genealogical community. The Society has been represented in various meeting at which the contents of the review have been discussed and hence makes this its preliminary response to the white paper, which takes in written consultations and discussions with the members.
The White Paper raises more questions than it answers. It tries to steer a path between issues raised by concerns for privacy such as those rights introduced under the European Human Rights Act and the demand for greater freedom of information. These two concerns do always sit well together and have led to what seems to be a doubtful compromise. Therefore the Society of Genealogists believes that in its current form many of the proposals of the white paper would seem to be unworkable.
The Society is against the proposed removal of information from the modern record that would currently be available.
The strongest feelings of our membership have been voiced against the restriction of certain information in the modern records. Of greatest concern is the proposed removal of information concerning the occupation of the parents. In many cases the father's occupation is the only way of identifying people with common names. The cause of death may be of prime concern to families worried about genetic conditions.
Restricted information is available from other sources.
Information concerning births can be obtained from some baptismal records, marriages from church registers and dates of death can be found from wills. Kieron Mahony has suggested that restriction might also be introduced to other related records held by the church such as marriage registers less than 100 years old but which also needed approval from the registration service. This is obviously of great concern to the Society of Genealogists, which, like other organisations, holds many copies of marriage registers for the twentieth century.
A hundred year restriction to all historic records is unworkable
It is particularly felt the restriction of information on deaths that occurred nearly 100 years ago is unnecessary. Kieron Mahony has admitted that the decision to restrict access equally to deaths as well as births and marriages was largely for administrative convenience and that there are obviously issues concerning the practical administration of restriction that have yet to be considered. Many instances have been cited as to why the paper's proposed restrictions on death records are especially unnecessary and give rise to inconsistencies. We await further details to see how these will be addressed.
The white paper suggests some of the proposals are similar to those systems in operation overseas. The Society has asked its opposite number in Australia (The Society of Australian Genealogists) for its initial thoughts on how restrictions to modern and historic records work. Most states do not have one blanket date restricting all records. Indeed rarely are death records restricted for more than 25 or 30 years. Marriages might be restricted for 40, 50 or 75 years and births 75 or 100 years.Some states have digitised the original documents some issue only paper copies (but not certified copies) of historic documents. Some indexes and images are on CD ROM but there are of course far fewer records to deal with.
The Society of Genealogists is against restrictions but, if they have to be, then at the very most it would suggest 75 years for births, 50 years for marriages and 25 years for deaths.
The proposals are an unfair restriction on legitimate research.
While appreciating concern to prevent fraudulent use of the records, most respondents have indicated that the suggested restrictions would not actually prevent misuse and would unfairly restrict individuals with legitimate intentions. The paper does not indicate how large is the problem of fraudulent use of modern certificates. Genealogists feel the issuing of information in a non certified form as in Scotland would eliminate many instances of fraud. Clarification is sought about what constitutes family or next of kin when seeking restricted information. Agents bodies are thought also to be ill defined.
Concern has been raised about local government or record offices' ability to protect the original records.
Assurances were given that the PRO would approve standards. Marily Troyano suggested that other historic records such as service and overseas material held by the Registrar General might be deposited with the Public Record Office. The PRO has issued a consultation paper concerning the deposit of the GRO's historic records and the Society would suggest these records are transferred as soon as possible.
The Society welcomes the proposal to produce indexes and images on line.
Digitisation and greater access to the historic records is most certainly welcomed and Kieron Mahony has given assurances that lessons from similar projects such as the 1901 census would be learned. However the Society reserves judgement until we hear how this project is to be undertaken and which historic records, (the local or Registrar General's copies) are to be digitised and indexed. The Society would recommend that the local records be used rather than the films at Southport. However we are anxious that any indexing of local records should be to a common standard. (There are already examples of local registries producing different on line access systems). A new national index to the local registers must be made as the existing national birth, marriage and death indexes are known to be faulty and should not be relied upon as a finding aid. This is a remarkable opportunity that should not be missed but the Society of Genealogists would emphasise that the users of such a finding aid be consulted and listened to from the very beginning of such a project.
The concept of a through life record is welcomed.
However The Society would point out that many Britons were born, married or died abroad and hence would be unconnected
The white paper suggests only some 1000 responses to the 1999 consultation document were received and of these half were from the genealogical community. This seems somewhat misleading as the Society's paper represented our views on behalf of our 15,000 members and those of the Federation and Family Tree Magazine represented many more. If as Kieron Mahony suggests the initial ideas in the white paper are in line with ministerial wishes then it behoves the genealogical community, both individuals and institutions, to make our wishes clear. The Society also advises individuals to send comments directly to Ruth Kelly, Minister for the Office for National Statistics at the House of Commons. E-mail the Registration Review Policy Team at registration.review@ons.gov.uk Perhaps our initial thoughts will influence the contents of the forthcoming consultation document that will be issued under the Regulatory Reform Act. One suspect that document has already been written. The genealogist's response to that document will be important and the Society of Genealogists will of course respond again when it is published.
Else Churchill
Genealogy Officer
October 2002