Extracts from the document from the General Register Office that explains
the Regulatory Reform Order¹
Bellow are the parts of the Explanatory Document where adoption or related
issues (foundlings, IVF) get a significant mention. Remember this the
explanatory document designed to make it all more easy to understand and
not the actual Order laid before parliament. Sorry it¹s still fairly long
but not the 330 plus pages that you would otherwise have to plough through
Robin
6.9.8 The draft order proposes who would have access to the restricted
information:- The person(s) named in the record. The parent or
guardian of the person named up to the age of 16. Family members of the
person(s) named in the record, in accordance with the proposed definition.
A properly appointed representative of the person named, such as a
solicitor. Those agencies having legally prescribed access to a
registration event, eg ONS, specific Government Departments. Those
organisations or individuals, given permission to access restricted
information by the person named or their representative (eg UKPS when
applying for a passport). (Where the person named in the record has died,
permission to access the restricted information would be given by the next
of kin, the executor of the deceased's estate or a properly appointed
representative.) Central and local registration staff. An adopted
person or adoption support agency.
6.13.11 Other Records
6.13.12 Adopted Children Register
6.13.13 The Adopted Children Register (ACR) is provided for in the Adoption
Act 1976 (the 1976 Act). Initially the ACR would not be part of the civil
registration central database or form part of ³through life² records.
Adoption records are subject to a different legal framework. The Adoption
and Children Act 2002 amends some of the provisions in the 1976 Act though
these are not likely to come into force before late 2004. It will be
necessary to assess the impact of the new arrangements before the ACR is
made more widely available. However, the proposed central database will be
technically capable of incorporating ACR records if it were decided to
include them at a later date.
6.13.14 Parental Order Register
6.13.15 The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 provides for
parental orders to be made by courts in respect of the parentage of children
who have been born through surrogate arrangements. A parental order enables
the child's birth to be re-registered to record the commissioning parents'
details in the birth record. The Parental Order Register (POR) contains the
birth records of children where a parental order has been made by a court in
England and Wales. The register was set up in 1994 and contains
approximately 300 entries.
6.13.16 For such events, it is proposed to capture both the original birth
record and the subsequent entry in the POR and to link them. However, in
order to maintain the confidentiality of those involved, and in line with
the legislation that covers parental orders, the link to the original birth
registration would not be available. This is in line with the provisions for
adoption records (Adoption Act 1976). Users of the central database would be
able to access the new entry (subject to the normal access rules), but only
the Registrar General would be able to see the link to the original birth
entry.
6.13.17 Abandoned Children Register/Foundling Register
6.13.18 There are a number of other records created and maintained by the
Registrar General, namely the records relating to children given into care
of the Foundling Hospital between 1853 and 1948 (registered under the
Foundling Hospital Act 1953), and the birth records of children found
abandoned since 1977 (recorded under section 3A of the BDRA 1953). The
legislation provides for the issue of short birth certificates from these
records.
6.13.19 It is proposed to computerise these records. They are few in
number (see table below) so electronic capture would be straightforward. A
new registration in the Abandoned Children Register would be entered
directly on the central database. The current provisions setting out the
manner in which these births can be registered will remain in place. There
would be minor consequential amendments to reflect the move to an electronic
system, the new organisational structure and the introduction of a system
for updating records rather than re-registering them.
Total Number of Records Pre-1900 events (approx) Records from the Foundling
Hospital (1853-1948) 3000 1300 Abandoned Children Register (1977- ) 191 -
6.13.20 As with other records, these miscellaneous records would be divided
into historic and modern and would be dealt with accordingly. The
information recorded in these registrations is different from standard birth
records. However, where recorded, access to addresses would be restricted in
line with the proposed access framework.
6.13.21 The issue of certificates from these records would be in line with
the provisions for other registration records held by the Registrar General.
7.12.3 Section 3A of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 allows for
the registration of abandoned children. Either the person in charge of the
child or the person concerned, once he or she has reached 18 years of age,
may apply to the Registrar General for the birth to be registered. The
section places burdens on the Registrar General who is required to register
such births, specifies the information to be included in the registration
and sets out the circumstances when he may not register these births. There
are also provisions for re-registering these births that give rise to
similar burdens.
7.12.4 Section 30 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 allows
a court to make a Parental Order in relation to a child that has been born
via surrogacy arrangements. This section sets out the conditions that must
be met before a Parental Order can be made. The statutory provisions for
maintaining the Parental Order Register are the provisions of the Adoption
Act 1976 applied by regulation to parental orders (Parental Orders (Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Act) 1994). These provisions place burdens on
courts, the parents involved in the Parental Orders and on the Registrar
General.
16.8.1 The following provisions relating to access are being designated as
subordinate provisions to the draft Order:
16.8.2 Information and records which may be entered on the register
(Schedule 2) - These provisions would specify which records may be entered
by the Registrar General on the register of registration. The records would
include: events relating to British Citizens that have been registered
abroad under existing statutes, events relating to HM Armed Forces,
events relating to British citizens registered abroad that are covered by
the Order, entries in the Parental Order Register, entries in the
Abandoned Children and Foundling Hospital Register, records of other
events held by the Registrar General such as events that have taken place
aboard British registered vessels, aircraft and installations (see section
on Overseas and Miscellaneous records), naturalisation records.
16.8.3 The list of records that may be entered on the register may increase
over time to include such things as partnership registrations, adoption
records, etc. Designating the provision as subordinate to the Order would
allow the list of records to be entered to be expanded or modified as
necessary. Any record not currently held by the Registrar General
(naturalisations, for example) would only be included with the agreement of
the holders/owners of those records.
20.5.41 Genealogists felt strongly that they should have access to through
life records and that linkages should be preserved and made available. They
were also of the view that people applying to access registration records
should be told of the existence of through life records and that everyone
engaged in researching inherited diseases should be made authorised users.
Other respondents suggested that only parents, spouses and children of the
person named in the record should have access. However, some did point out
that if family members had access to through life records there was a risk
of ill-treated individuals being found by their partners. Adoption groups
were of the view that making linking information available would make
searching easier for adoptees and would prevent unnecessary intrusion into
the lives of unrelated individuals. A few respondents felt through life
records should be made available after 100 years.
20.6.16 Respondents pointed to other rights and freedoms that could be
affected by the proposals. For example, children could be prevented from
knowing their parents and the individual's right to privacy would be
compromised if the State controlled personal information. Other respondents
felt that the right of individuals to have accurate information recorded
about them and for historic information to be protected could be affected as
could the right to access personal information after divorce. A few
registration officers felt that the proposals removed existing checks and
balances from the verification of corrections. One respondent felt that the
implications for adoptions and surrogacy had not been considered.
20.7 Classification and computerisation/Central Database and Records
Management
20.7.1 About a third of all respondents commented on the proposals for
classification, computerisation and records management. Over half the
responses to these proposals came from members of the public, the majority
of whom were actually genealogists. Registration officers and local
authorities accounted for about 28% of respondents and representatives from
the religious communities made up approximately 14%. The full list of types
of respondents is given below: Genealogists, family historians and
genealogical groups, both amateur and professional. Registration
officers, local authorities, including the Local Authorities Co- ordinators
of Regulatory Services (LACORS) and the Institute of Population
Registration. Members of religious communities. Members of the public.
Medical, NHS and public health bodies, such as the National Institute for
Clinical Excellence, the Commission for Health Improvements, Association of
Public Health Authorities. Archivist, including the Association of Chief
Archivists in Local Government, the Society of Archivists, the National
Council on Archives and the Advisory Council on National Records and
Archives. Other groups, including insurance companies, the Association of
British Insurers and the Direct Marketing Association. Adoption groups.
20.8.4 Access
20.8.5 There was some general support for the proposals on access and some
recognition of the need to protect privacy and confidentiality and to reduce
fraud. However, there was widespread opposition to the manner proposed to
achieve this. Opposition came from all groups, but the reasons given
differed depending on the group and were often contradictory.
20.8.6 For example, most respondents were against the proposal to restrict
access to the records of people born in the last 100 years. Local
Authorities, the local registration service and other groups felt that the
proposals did not sufficiently protect those people who live to be over 100
years of age or their families. They felt that the right of such people to
privacy was not being maintained and that the rights of genealogists should
not be put before the rights of the living. On the other hand, genealogists
and family historians argued that the proposal would prevent them from
carrying out family, social and historical research and that it would remove
a right they currently enjoy and that they would expect to continue to
enjoy. Adopted people, blood relatives of adopted people and those
representing people affected by adoption also felt that the 100 year cut off
would prevent people separated from their blood families from tracing them.
The same concern was expressed in relation to people who had been taken into
care. A minority of people supported the proposal and felt it maintained
necessary protection, protected existing rights and freedoms and met the
tests of proportionality, fair balance and desirability.
20.8.9 More generally, and taking the proposals for access as a whole, there
was concern that the proposals did not balance the interests of all groups
or that they were divisive. Some respondents felt that the system would
create a two-tier system where by Government Departments and Agencies and
other organisations would have access to the restricted information whilst
the public would be denied it. Genealogists felt that the proposed access
framework denied their civil liberties and was against Freedom of
Information principles. Adopted people and those representing people
affected by adoption felt that the proposals prevented them carrying out
controlled and safe searching for birth relatives and that it was therefore
contrary to the provisions in the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
20.8.22 The vast majority of respondents did not agree with the
Government's proposed definition of family. A minority recommended
restricting the definition even further but the majority thought that it
should be widened as much as possible and that is should include relatives
by blood and adoption to meet the needs of adopted people. Two main
alternative definitions of family suggested were: a) the definition of
family used by the Ministry of Defence for accessing service records, and b)
the definition in the Adoption Act 1976.
20.8.23 Authorised Users
20.8.24 Although few comments were received in the main body of the
consultation, over 400 responses were received to the supplementary question
asking for views on the on the proposed list of authorised users. The
responses were often contradictory - saying that the list was both too wide
and that it was too restrictive. Similarly, some respondents agreed that
authorised users should be required to obtain permission before being able
to access a record, whilst others felt that authorised users should have
unrestricted access to all records. A small group (made up mainly by local
registration staff) supported the proposed definition.
20.8.25 A substantial group of respondents expressed concern that any
system of authorised users should be secure and tightly controlled to guard
against fraud and the unauthorised use of information or felt that they were
a potential risk to security. Some public health bodies agreed that the
burdens resulting from the introduction of authorised users were
proportional to the necessity of maintaining a secure and robust system for
registration. Insurance organisations questioned whether they would have
indemnity if false or incorrect details were entered onto the database.
20.8.26 A reasonable number of respondents felt that the definition was too
wide and would give too many people access to sensitive information. This
group felt authorised users should be restricted, to immediate family,
Government Departments and/or professional bodies who had an absolute need
to access the information. This group was also concerned that there should
not be any commercial exploitation of registration records and as such, felt
that private sector organisations should not have access to registration
records.
20.8.27 The most common view expressed, however, was that the listed needed
to be expanded. As on other issues, the suggestions for who should be
included were diverse and contradictory. About a third of respondents felt
that the definition should include adoption agencies (both voluntary
adoption groups and Adoption Support Agencies). Respondents included NORCAP,
the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, Barnado's, international
and local adoption groups and the Coram Society. 20.8.28 Failure to include
them in the definition would prevent them from carrying out their
obligations under S98 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. These
respondents were also of the view that adoption groups should have
unrestricted access to registration records.
20.8.31 Proving entitlement to access the restricted information
20.8.32 There was significant concern amongst all groups about how
entitlement to access the restricted information would be established. Local
authorities and the local registration service considered that the
requirement to confirm entitlement would result in an increased burden on
their employees and on other holders of registration records (eg.
archivists). The burden would be both practical and financial. Those with an
interest in adoption and genealogists were concerned about the ability of
applicants to prove entitlement. Many respondents were of view that the
proposals were unworkable as it is precisely the restricted information that
would be required to prove entitlement. A number suggested that further
clarification was needed in this area and that clear guidelines should be
supplied to anyone responsible for applying the access framework.
21. 8 Access to registration records
21.8.1 Following its analysis of the responses received to the consultation
exercise, the Government has made a number of changes to the proposals on
access. The main changes are: a) Changes to the restricted data items b)
Move from a person-based access model to a record-based one c) Adopted
people and Adoption Support Agencies - Access to records d) Changes to the
proposed list of authorised users e) Electronic records as evidence f)
Cost of accessing the database and obtaining paper copies.
21.8.2 Further information about the changes and the justification can be
found below.
21.8.15 c) Adopted people and Adoption Support Agencies - Access to records
21.8.16 As described above, a large number of individuals affected by or
involved in adoptions responded to the consultation document expressing
their concerns that the proposed access framework was incompatible with
their rights under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (the 2002 Act).
Specifically, they were concerned that it would prevent adopted people from
engaging in safe searching for their blood relatives or allow Adoption
Support Agencies from carrying out their obligations under the Act. They
were concerned that the definition of family excluded them from accessing
records relating to their blood families.
21.8.17 The Government has considered this issue and consulted as
appropriate with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). It accepts
that the access framework needs to be compatible with the provisions of the
2002 Act both in terms of rights of access for adopted people and of the
responsibilities and role of Adoption Support Agencies. On the other hand it
was mindful of the need to maintain the protections offered to adopted
people and their birth families by the proposed access model.
21.8.18 The Government has therefore decided that the restricted
information would be available to those who require it for adoption
purposes. This would allow adopted people to trace their blood relatives and
Adoption Support Agencies to assist them. It would be achieved by including
adopted people and Adoption Support Agencies in the subordinate provisions
that set out who would be entitled to access the restricted information.
This solution would however, protect adopted people from unwanted approaches
from blood relatives. It does not propose to make any further changes to the
definition of family.
21.8.38 The Government agrees that the rights of some groups should not
come before the rights of others. For example, although it accepts that
genealogists have an interest in registration records, it does not think
that their needs should come above those of other groups or of the
individuals named on the record. Similarly, it does not accept that public
and private sector bodies should have unfettered access to registration
records. Overall, the Government is still of the view that the proposed
framework does meet all the tests and safeguards of the Regulatory Reform
Act 2001. For example, the proposals balance the interests of all groups as
well as balancing openness with privacy. The restrictions and burdens
imposed are proportionate to the benefits that would result. Lastly, the
proposals maintain those rights and freedoms that individuals can expect to
continue to exercise as well as all the necessary protections. The changes
described above would improve the accessibility of registration information
for groups such as genealogists and those involved with adoptions and would
allay some of the main concerns expressed in the representations.
21.12.8 Adopted people/ACR
21.12.9 There was general concern in the responses to these proposals that
records from the Adopted Children Register (ACR) would not be included on
the national database. Similar concerns were expressed in the sections on
access and through life records. As has been described earlier, it was
agreed by Ministers that the ACR was outside the scope of civil registration
reform.
21.12.10 The proposals discussed in this section maintain the status quo
for adopted persons. In the future, it would still be possible to annotate a
child's birth record when it is held electronically but that record would
not be linked on the database to the record in the ACR. A child who is born
in England or Wales and subsequently adopted would not benefit from the
proposal for dealing with the miscellaneous records held by the Registrar
General or from the provision for linking records.
21.12.11 It has been acknowledged that this leaves adopted persons in a
disadvantageous position as they would be the only group of persons who,
when asked for evidence of their birth, would have to produce a certificate
(issued from their entry in the ACR). Officials in DfES are aware of this
issue. Further legislation would be required to remedy this situation.
However, the section on Access explains that the Government has decided that
adopted people and Adoption Support Agencies should have access to the
restricted information for the purposes of adoption. This would allow
adopted people to trace birth relatives and Adoption Support Agencies to
assist them.