Post by Robin HarrittThis is the biggest threat so far to adopted people and birth relatives
seeking to find each other in a responsible way. Has anyone at all here
taken the bother to look at this, fill out the consultation form, write to
their own MP and write to the MPs who have expressed an interest? If you
don't you will lose the right to access much of the information in civil
records that we now use in tracing. Even the professional social workers
involved in Section 51 work will lose the right to access that information
on your behalf. You have until October the 24th to answer the consultation.
You need to look at at least Chapter 6 particularly at sec 6.4.2 and
especially 6.4.2.5 to 6.4.2.8 then answer the questions that form a part of
that section on the form in Annex I (pages 291 to 325) the most relevant
part is on page 312 . This has to do with what the government's definition
of a "family" will be, you will not be able to access full Birth, Marriage
and Death certificate information unless you are a family member and of
course for most of us here, the very reason we are seeking this information
is to find out if the person concerned is a member of our family. Even
"authorised users" will not be able to access the information unless they
have the consent of the information subject, very difficult if the
information subject is being searched for and that is the reason why you
require the information, a Catch 22 situation.
The reason we find ourselves in this position is that we were so apathetic
when the first round of consultation took place in 1999 and again last year
when the White Paper was released. The government received a 1000 responses
to the White Paper about a half of those were from genealogists, I don't
expect that more than about three were from the adoption community. We hear
a lot people whinge about difficulties that we all have with tracing, things
will get worse not better unless we all play our part in influencing the
legislation. You don't have to be a UK resident to do this, if your adoption
situation involved an adoption in England or Wales then this applies to you!
Robin Harritt
Sorry that should refer to 6.4.25 to 6.4.28 the important question among
others is 112. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing
to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably expect to
continue?
Had to write that down on my knee at a meeting on the issues yesterday, my
hearing's going obviously. Anyway here is Chapter 6 as best I can copy it
from the PDF.
Robin
***********************************************************************
Chapter 6
Privacy and access to registration records
6.1 Overview of chapter
Background
6.1.1 This section of the consultation document deals
primarily with proposals for accessing registration records. It
covers the changes that would be required to the
Registration Acts (Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953
(BDRA 1953), Marriage Act 1949 (MA 1949) and
Registration Service Act 1953 (RSA 1953)) to achieve these
proposals as well as any new provisions required. It also
covers changes to the way registration records are classified,
plans for computerisation and records management.
6.1.2 The Registration Acts set out the arrangements for
accessing registration records via a system of issuing certified
copies. The Acts preclude access by any other means unless
it is specifically provided for in law. They also lay specific
responsibilities on the Registrar General, registration officers
and other holds of registration records. The Acts also give
power to the Registrar General, subject to the approval of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make regulations in
respect of certain provisions.
6.1.3 The Registration Acts consolidate the provisions of
previous Acts dating back to 1837 and the effect is to place
severe limitations on the ability of the civil registration
system to meet the needs of modern society and of the users
of registration records in terms of access. Radical change is
needed to remove the current restrictions and to provide a
framework for access that meets the needs of all user,
balances openness and privacy, provides protection and
makes the best use of modern technology.
Proposed changes
6.1.4 The public consultation carried out by the
Registrar General for England and Wales in 1999 sought
views on how to balance an individual¹s privacy with the
public interest in registration records, how to define historic
records and on what level of access there should be to
historic records. The most popular suggestion for balancing
privacy with openness was to restrict access to modern
records. There was overwhelming support for greater access
to historic records. Respondents were evenly divided on
whether historic records should be defined as records over
75 years or over 100 years. Views were also sought on the
electronic transfer of registration information to approved
users and on whether there should be a more flexible and
6.1.5 The access framework would differentiate between
records relating to people aged over 100 years of age
(historic records) and those relating to people aged less than
100 years (modern records). There would be improved
access to historic records. Modern records would continue
to be publicly available, but access to some confidential
information would be restricted.
6.1.6 The creation of a national database would improve
the availability of registration records for all users and would
facilitate the electronic transfer of information to certain
authorised users. The move to an electronic system would
allow the use of paper certificates to be phased out. The
proposals would help to reduce fraud and protect
individuals and the public purse.
6.2 Classification and computerisation
Current position
6.2.1 Civil registration records are, on the whole, paper
based, although births and deaths since 1993 have been
electronically captured. The legal record is the entry that is
made by hand in the paper registers held locally by
registrars. Under the current provisions of the BDRA 1953
and MA 1949, there are separate registers for birth,
marriages and deaths (and some other events such as stillbirths).
Local register offices, the General Register Office
and religious organisations hold versions of these records.
All deposited records are treated the same when it comes to
access and availability regardless of their age or the use that
is being made of them.
6.2.2 This approach has led to difficulties, particularly in
recent times. Genealogists and family historians argue that
the older records in which they are interested (mainly from
the 19th Century) should be made more easily available to the
public. On the other hand, access to more recent records is
relatively straightforward and inexpensive and has led to them
being used fraudulently. Moreover, the system for accessing
these records takes no account of the privacy of persons
identified. Access is discussed more fully in section 6.4.
6.2.3 There are two possible ways to categorise
registration records: according to when the record was
created (age of the record) or according to the age of the
person named in the record. It is proposed to use both these
categorisations, but for different purposes.
6.2.4 It is proposed to use the age of the person to
determine the classification of the records and the access
framework that would apply them. More recent records that
are used most extensively for transactions with Government
for official purposes would be distinguished from older
records that are used mainly for research. The main
classification would be:
Historic records relating to people born over 100
years ago. These would be fully open and no
information would be restricted.
Modern records relating to people born less than 100
years ago. The majority of the record would be publicly
available.
The proposed access framework that would apply is
described in more detail in section 6.4.
6.2.5 The age of the records themselves would determine
where the physical records would be kept and by whom.
Records created less than 100 years ago would be held by
the Registrar General. In time, these would be held on the
central database of registration records (see paragraphs 1.2.1
and 6.3.16.3.7 for more information). For records created
over 100 years ago, the intention is to make them available
for computerisation. The not-for-profit sector has been
identified as a possible candidate for taking forward this task
given that they have experience of digitising and making
available records of genealogical interest. However, regardless
of who takes forward the computerisation of the historic
records, any such project would have to be done under nonexclusive
licensing arrangements, in line with Government
policy. The database that holds these records is referred to as
the historic database in this chapter.
6.2.6 The combination of these two approaches would
help to deliver a system that:
continues to make available registration records;
meets the needs of main users of more recent (modern)
registration records; and
protects the interests of those named in the records; and
increases the availability of older (historic) registration
records.
Table showing long-term proposals for access and
classification of registration records
Age of record Age of person
Under 100 years On Central
Database
Access to some
information is
restricted
Over 100 years Moved to the
historic database
Full access
6.2.7 In the much longer term, when all registration
records (both modern and historic) have been computerised,
it may be possible to move to a system were registration
records are transferred to the historic database when they are
fully open and not 100 years after their creation. In this
scenario, all the registration records relating to one person
would be transferred on the 100th anniversary of that
person¹s birth, rather than according to the age of the record
(see paragraphs 6.6.76.6.11 for specific proposals relating
to marriage records). However, as it is not possible to say
how long computerisation of records would take, the
proposed legislation will therefore have to be flexible enough
to allow this to happen.
6.3 The central database and records
Management
Proposals for change
6.3.1 The Government has set stretching targets for the
delivery of electronic services in the public sector. Civil
registration is part of that programme. In order to achieve
this aim, it is proposed that all records created less than 100
years ago would eventually be captured electronically and
put on the central database that would be accessible
centrally and locally (see paragraph 1.2.1). There would be
provisions to allow the Registrar General to capture these
records. New events would be captured electronically at the
time of registration. The central database would be managed
by the General Register Office. In line with initiatives
elsewhere in the public sector as part of the e-government
agenda, the creation of an electronically accessible central
database would bring benefits to the public as well as for
many Government Departments and Agencies. This
approach provides a framework for improved services
through joined-up Government.
6.3.2 Having an electronic central database brings with it
many opportunities for the use of records and for records
management. The constraints that make paper based
systems inflexible would no longer apply and information
collection, maintenance and transfer become easier, quicker
and more accurate.
6.3.3 Computerising civil registration records would be a
large task and it is unrealistic to expect that all records
would be computerised at once. Preliminary research has
shown that records relating to the last 70 years or so
(approximately 1935 onwards) are the most heavily used for
official transactions with Government Departments and
Agencies and financial services organisations. It is proposed
that these records would be computerised in the first
instance to maximise the benefits of the central database.
The cost of capturing these records would be met by the
public purse. The remaining modern records would not be
computerised immediately. Thus, the extent to which
modern records would be computerised will depend on
funding and the business justification for their inclusion.
6.3.4 It is not possible at this stage to set out in any detail
the timetable for the development of the central database
and for the digitisation of the modern records. Some records
for the last 10 years or so are already held electronically. The
programme for digitisation would build on this. Overall, the
computerisation would take several years to complete.
6.3.5 It is probable that the records held centrally by the
General Register Office would be used as the source for the
digitisation of modern records. A recent project has shown
the quality of the General Register Office¹s records to be
high. Using them as a basis for the digitisation would also be
the best and most efficient option in terms of resources. It
has not been decided which records would be used for the
computerisation of the historic records. This would be for
whomever takes forward the project to decide. In any event,
it is proposed that the original registers should continue to
be available in order that they can be consulted for
clarification of any details.
6.3.6 A hundred years after their creation, registration
records would be passed over for inclusion on the historic
database. In time, when there is a fully computerised system,
it would be an electronic transfer. As described in paragraph
6.2.7, it may be possible at that stage to transfer records to
the historic database as soon as the access restrictions were
lifted, that is, when the person to whom they relate reaches
100 years of age.
New records
6.3.7 It is acknowledged that quality issues for the central
database are foremost in many people¹s minds. As with any
system, whether paper or IT based, human error can occur.
Safeguards would be built into the central database to
minimise errors and build confidence in its quality with the
public and other users. For example, there would be a review
and edit facility built into the system to maximise the accuracy of the
information before the registration is locked.
Those registering events would be given the opportunity to
check and amend the information and to obtain a print out
of it. The on-line system would be menu driven and would
include help functions to minimise the possibility of errors.
The system would be able to flag records where the
registration has not been completed so these can be followed
up. The procedures for amending information would be
simplified to allow any errors to be corrected. These issues
will be described in more detail in section 5 3.
Regulatory reform order tests and safeguards
classifi cation and computerisation; central
database and records management
Removal and reduction of burdens
6.3.8 The proposals will remove the legal burdens
associated with using a paper based system for the
registration of life events and the management of paper
records. These burdens are incorporated in the provisions of
the Registration Acts. These burdens include: the
requirement to attend a specific register office to register a
birth, still-birth or death or to give notice of marriage, the
requirement to produce drafts of particulars, restrictions on
the way documents are produced (eg on paper), and
requirements to register events in paper registers in a
prescribed format. The removal of these burdens is dealt
with fully in the chapters on births, still-births and deaths
(Chapter 2) and on marriages (Chapter 3).
6.3.9 Other burdens that will be removed include the
requirement to provide registers and other forms in the
prescribed format, to produce and submit certified quarterly
copies, to produce indexes to records, to allow searches of
those indexes and to produce certificates and for the
safekeeping of registers and certified copies. These
requirements are burdens on the Registrar General,
registration officers and other holders of registers who
administer them and on the public who are affected by
them. The removal of these burdens is dealt with fully later
in this chapter and in Chapter 7 (Registers).
6.3.10 The removal of all these burdens will not remove
any necessary protection nor will it prevent anyone from
exercising any right or freedom. The requirement to register
life events will remain and with it the protection that is
afforded to individuals, Government and society as a whole.
Reenactment of provisions imposing burdens
6.3.11 No provisions will be re-enacted as a result of these
proposals.
Burdens imposed
6.3.12 The classification of registration records into
historic and modern records will not impose any new legal
burdens. It is a question of definitions. The application of
access restrictions to the information held in the records
will, however, impose burdens, both on those who are
required to administer the system and those who use it.
These are described later in the chapter (see paragraphs
6.4.536.4.63).
6.3.13 It is proposed that the Registrar General should
continue to be required to provide a system for registering
life events (also see paragragh 10.2.12). He will be able to
determine, as he does now, the form that system should
take. It will allow the creation of electronic records. This
requirement is a burden on the Registrar General and on
registration authorities who will also register events. The
Registrar General will be required to capture on the central
database existing registration records. He will also be
required to release registration records to enable the transfer
of historic records to other organisations (see paragraphs
6.6.146.6.16 for further details). These requirements are
burdens on him.
Fair balance, desirability and proportionality
6.3.14 As a condition of creating new burdens that will
affect how the registration records of people over 100 years
of age are accessed, the Minister making an order under the
Regulatory Reform Act 2001 must be of the opinion that:
(a) the provisions of the order, taken as a whole, strike a fair
balance between the public interest (those who may
have an interest in registration information or who as
taxpayers pay for the registration service) and the
interests of the persons affected by the burdens being
created (the Registrar General and those who use
registration information); and
(b) the extent to which the order removes or reduces one or
more burdens, or has other beneficial effects for persons
affected by the burdens imposed by the existing law (the
Registrar General and users of registration information),
makes it desirable for the order to be made.
The 2001 Act also requires that any burden created must be
proportionate to the benefits that flow from it.
6.3.15 In the Minister¹s view, the burdens created are
proportionate to the benefits that will result from the new
system, and the Minister may properly reach the opinions
outlined above. The provisions do strike a fair balance
between the general public¹s interest in registration
information and the interests of the Registrar General, who
administers the registration system. Further, the benefits to
those people who use registration services and to society as a
whole make it desirable that the order should be made.
6.3.16 The proposals described in this section are essential
to deliver the package of changes to civil registration. The creation of the
central database fits in with the wider
Government targets for the delivery of electronic services in
the public sector and will contribute to better joined-up
Government in line with developments in other services. It
will deliver benefits to the public (in terms of flexibility,
availability and choice) as well as to public and private sector
bodies. The proposals balance the interests of the public and
users of registration records and of the Registrar General
who will run the system. The benefits that will arise make it
desirable for the order to be made.
6.3.17 The burden on the Registrar General to provide a
means of registering life events will replace existing
requirements associated with the paper based system. It is
desirable and proportionate as it will deliver better services
that make full use of modern technology. The burden of
capturing existing registration records is also proportionate,
as it will help to maximise the potential of the central
database and its usefulness to Government and other users
of registration records. Enabling the Registrar General to
release records will lead to an improvement in the
availability of certain records. The introduction of these
burdens is therefore justifiable and outweighed by the
benefits that will result.
Necessary protection
6.3.18 The proposals for the classification of registration
records and for records management will not remove any
necessary protection. The design of the central database will
include safeguards that will ensure the accuracy of the
information collected for new registrations and of the
digitisation of modern records. This will, in turn, continue
to protect individuals and society. The electronic system will
also include backup and other technical procedures to
maintain the integrity, availability and security of the records
for the long-term. This will ensure that none of the
protection that comes from having secure records is lost.
People whose records are not computerised in the first
instance will not be penalised and will continue to be able to
rely on the present system of certificates to obtain services
and benefits. Over time, all modern registration records will
be digitised and certificates will be phased out, though the
original registers will be preserved.
Rights and freedoms
6.3.19 These proposals will not prevent any person from
continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she
may reasonably expect to continue to exercise. They will, in
fact, increase people¹s freedom to access registration records
and maximise the availability of records. In turn, digitisation
will facilitate the electronic delivery of services that have
relied upon the production of certificates in their business
processes.
Costs and savings
6.3.20 The Exchequer is expected to fund the setting up of
the central database and the electronic capture of records.
The benefits that will result to the public, Government,
private sector bodies and society from the move to an
electronic system for civil registration will justify the set-up
costs. The benefits include delivering joined-up
Government, simpler and quicker transactions and
improved choice, accessibility and availability. These benefits
will be described throughout this document. In the long
term, there is likely to be a reduction in the cost to the
public purse. The computerisation of the historic records
will not affect the public purse.
We would welcome views on whether the proposed system for
classifying and computerising registration records satisfies the
regulatory reform tests and safeguards.
Questions
In respect of the proposals for classifying and
computerising registration records and of records
management:
96. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections
for those affected?
97. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing
to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might
reasonably expect to continue?
98. 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.
99. Do you have any views on the costs and savings
identified?
100. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from
the proposals?
6.4 Access
Current position
6.4.1 The BDRA 1953 and MA 1949 are specific about
the means by which registration information is accessed.
The Acts require the Registrar General and superintendent
registrars to produce indexes of all the records they hold.
Anyone is entitled to search these indexes and to purchase a
certificate of any register entry of a birth, marriage or death
on payment of the appropriate fee. Unless provided for in
other law, registration information cannot be disclosed in
any other way. The Registrar General is required to send
forms to superintendent registrars to enable them to
produce indexes.
6.4.2 Registrars are not required to produce indexes for
records in their possession. They only hold the registers they
are currently using to register events. However, registrars are
required to allow searches to be made in the registers they
hold and to produce certificates of any event in those
registers on payment of the appropriate fee.
6.4.3 Registrars issue certificates when an event is
registered. Certificates can also be purchased subsequently
from the district where the event took place or, after a time,
from the Registrar General. Currently, the statutory fee for
the purchase of a certificate is £7. Certificates are not proof
of identity and contain a warning to that effect. They simply
record that an event has taken place. Additionally,
certificates issued by the General Register Office must be
sealed or stamped with the seal of that office in order to be
taken as evidence that that event has taken place.
6.4.4 For religious marriages, the clergy, registering
officers, secretaries of synagogues and authorised persons,
are able to allow searches in marriage registers they hold and
to issue marriage certificates at the time of the event and
subsequently for the same statutory fee.
6.4.5 The arrangements for accessing still-birth records
are different. The Registrar General holds all completed
registers of still-births but does not produce indexes for
them. Registrars hold the current register of still-births for
their area. Still-birth records are made available via
certificate, but access to the records is at the discretion of the
Registrar General. In addition to ethically approved
research, the Registrar General¹s discretion extends access to
the parents of the still-born child, and where both of these
are deceased, any siblings. Where siblings apply, they must
provide details of the dates of death of the parents. These
limitations are in place due to the sensitive nature of these
records to protect the parents of the still-born child (or the
siblings, where the parents are deceased) from any
unnecessary distress.
6.4.6 Registrars are able to issue certificates of still-birth
or allow searches to be made in still-birth registers but only
with the consent of the Registrar General.
6.4.7 People are required to present certificates for
numerous purposes. For example, new parents must present
birth certificates for claiming child benefit and other state
benefits; birth or marriage certificates are requested when
applying for passports or driving licences or for employment
purposes and death certificates are required by banks and
insurance companies when settling the estates of the
deceased. As services and benefits are often dealt with
separately, members of the public can be required to present
certificates to a number of different organisations.
Certificates can be reused but some people are concerned at
using what they see as an important document, which could
get lost or damaged.
6.4.8 Genealogists and family historians purchase a large
number of certificates as part of their research. The current
system for accessing registration records places a number of
burdens on them. Identifying the correct record from the
indexes can be difficult because the indexes contain only
limited information. It is not possible to browse the records
or search through them. Effectively this makes the research
expensive, time-consuming, bureaucratic and frustrating. It
usually involves travelling in order to consult the indexes.
6.4.9 This system allows for public scrutiny of the
records, but it has no controls or safeguards built into it by
law. It treats all records the same, regardless of their age or
the use that is made of them. It means that information
about living individuals is openly available, potentially
impinging on their privacy. The system has left registration
records open to abuse as paper certificates can, and have
been, used for fraudulent purposes. The fraudulent use of
certificates affects other Government Departments and
Agencies such as UK Passport Services (UKPS), the Driver
and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and the Department
for Work and Pensions (DWP).
6.4.10 Developments in modern technology have led to
an increase in the amount of information and administrative
records being captured electronically. This, combined with
the increased use of the Internet has made access to
information much easier. It has led to concerns among
members of the public who do not want their details to be
so widely available.
Sanctions and penalties
6.4.11 It is an offence to falsify birth, still-birth or death
certificates (S37 of the BDRA 1953). The penalty for these
offences is a fine.
Proposals for change
6.4.12 It is proposed to introduce a new framework for
accessing civil registration records that will distinguish
between modern and historic records. This new system
would take into account the proposals for increasing the use
of modern technology and the creation of the central
database for registration records. It would also take into
consideration the principles of the Data Protection 1998
and Freedom of Information 2000 Acts. In respect of
modern records, the proposed system would balance the
individual¹s right to privacy with the public interest in the
information.
6.4.13 Briefly, the new system would:
create a central computerised database of modern civil registration
records which can be accessed directly to
check information;
remove the need for paper certificates for most public/
private sector transactions;
for modern records (those relating to people born less
than 100 years ago), make the majority of the
information publicly available and more accessible than
under current arrangements. In addition, it would
restrict access to some information of a more personal
nature;
allow for the linking of records relating to the same
person;
deliver improved searching facilities via more
sophisticated search engines;
improve access to all the information contained in
historic records (those relating to people born over 100
years ago); and
support computerisation of records created over 100
years ago, probably by the not-for-profit sector (see
paragrapg 6.2.5), and make them available over the
Internet, probably free of charge.
Modern records
6.4.14 It is proposed to electronically capture modern
records on the central database. They will comprise both
new registrations and existing records. As described in
paragraph 6.3.3, all modern records would not be
computerised immediately.
6.4.15 The majority of the information contained in
modern registration records would continue to be fully
available as it is now. Once computerised, the information
would be more accessible than at present, as it would no
longer be necessary to purchase certificates to see it. Instead,
information would be available via the central database, on
payment of an access fee. Access fees would be established in
the subordinate provisions to the order. Details of the
proposed fees for accessing records on the central database
can be found in Appendix 11D. Facilities for searching the
database will be available though it will not be possible to
browse through groups of records.
6.4.16 Registration records contain some information that
is more sensitive and could cause embarrassment, distress or
danger to those named in the registration or their families.
For example, making available on a birth certificate the
address of a mother who is the victim of domestic violence
may put her at risk; particular people may be targeted
because of their occupation; the family of someone who
died of a socially difficult illness could face embarrassment
or distress if that information was widely available. It is
proposed to restrict general access to this information.
6.4.17 In practice, the restricted information would be a
small subset of the overall record, consisting of addresses,
occupations and cause of death. This would be set out in
legislation. The access restrictions would apply equally to
records in electronic, paper and other media. Appendix 6A
gives details of which data items would be open and
restricted.
6.4.18 The legislation would also set out who would have
access to the restricted information. It is proposed that this
would be as follows:
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 definition proposed at
paragraphs 6.4.256.4.28.
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. Appendix 6B gives details of the current
list of Government Departments who have access to
registration records.
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
deceased¹s estate or a properly appointed representative.)
Central and local registration staff.
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. The ability to give
consent would be limited to the individual, parents or
guardians where they are under 16 years of age and
representatives of the person named, eg the next of kin
where the person has died or a solicitor.
6.4.20 In addition, it is intended that the law would allow
both the restricted and open data to be available within
ONS and to other Government Departments and public
bodies (such as the NHS) for statistical research. There
would also be administrative arrangements in place for the
restricted information to be used for ethically approved
medical and social research. This is equivalent to what
currently happens and would ensure that important research
that is in the public interest can continue. Such research has
in the past provided vital information on the causes and
prevention of diseases (eg smoking and lung cancer).
6.4.21 It is not proposed to change the access
arrangements for still-births. Access to these records would continue to be
available at the discretion of the Registrar
General. The legal provisions for this would remain in place.
They would be amended to remove the constraints of
making the records available only via certificates and reflect
the move to the central database. The amended provisions
would also allow the Registrar General to give registration
authorities the ability to give access to the records locally.
The existing administrative arrangements would also remain
in place to ensure the parents (and siblings) of still-born
children are protected from any unnecessary distress.
6.4.22 As modern registration records are computerised,
the need to present paper certificates would reduce. It is
envisaged that Government Departments and Agencies and
other public and private organisations would either be able
to access the information they require directly on the central
database or have information verified by the Registrar
General. The production of certificates would be phased
out. This would mean that access to the restricted
information would be in line with the framework described
above and would, in many instances, require the person
named on the record or their representative to give
permission for that information to be accessed.
6.4.23 Government bodies and private sector organisations
would be able to streamline and speed up their processes as a
result of not having to handle certificates. Verifying
information electronically would be quicker, easier and more
accurate and would result in savings for those organisations
that use registration information and for their customers.
The restricted information (particularly addresses) could be
used as a way of confirming that the person applying for a
service or benefit is indeed that person, both reducing the
fraudulent use of registration information and ensuring that
those entitled to those services or benefits are able to obtain
them.
6.4.24 Genealogists and researchers would no longer need
to purchase certificates in order to access modern
registration records for their research. They would be able to use the
on-line system to search for and access the records in
which they are interested. However, for modern records,
genealogists would only be able to see the restricted
information where they are entitled to do so (eg for family
members).
Definition of family
6.4.25 The definition of family for the purposes of access
is an issue on which the Government is seeking views. There
are a number of options for defining what constitutes a
family member. One would be to define family in its widest
sense to include any person related by blood or marriage or
who was a life partner to the person named in the record. At
the other end of the spectrum, the definition could be kept
very narrow to include only the spouse or life partner of the
individual, their parents/step parents, children/step children
and siblings/half siblings.
6.4.26 The Government sees merit in a definition that is
between these two extremes. For the purposes of accessing
modern civil registration records, family could be defined to
include the spouse/life partner of the individual, their
children/step children, parents/step parents, (including
guardians), brothers and sisters (including half and step
siblings), grandparents/step grandparents, grandchildren/
step grandchildren, uncles or aunts (or if any have died their
children). Family members would have to confirm their
relationship by producing appropriate evidence, in paper or
via the central database.
6.4.27 This option would allow close family with a
legitimate need to access the restricted information to do so.
It would allow genealogists and family historians to see the
full records of recent generations and to find individuals that
could give them access to other branches of the family.
Those carrying out research to find the prevalence of an
illness in a family would have access to cause of death for
several generations, thus allowing them to do so. On the
other hand, it would prevent fishing trips¹ in the modern
records (systematic searches for certain types of records often
used for fraudulent purposes) and is in line with the need to
balance the rights of the individual with the public interest
in openness.
6.4.28 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. This is covered further in paragraphs 6.4.836.4.87.
On the other hand, genealogists would be able to take
advantage of all the benefit of having a computerised
system, including better searching facilities and potentially
financial and other savings.
S6 Do you have any views on the proposed definition
of family in respect of accessing registration records?
Authorised Users
6.4.29 It is likely that there will be a process for the approval
of Authorised Users of registration information. These
Authorised Users would principally be organisations who
access large numbers of registration records as part of their
business and who may require access to the restricted
information. Authorised Users would be able only to access
restricted information where the person named in the record
or their representative has given permission for them to do so.
6.4.30 It is proposed that Authorised Users would include
the following:
Government Departments and Agencies who use
registration data (such as UKPS, DWP, DVLA and the
Inland Revenue).
Institutional users who use registration data as part of
their processes such as financial institutions and
insurance companies.
Those that require access to the restricted information
for legal purposes, such as the police, solicitors or those
granting probate.
6.4.31 Once accredited as an Authorised User, the
organisation would be given the technological tools to access
the central database, for example, a log-on identity and
password. It would be possible for an organisation to have a
number of operators with access to the restricted data.
Individual operators would, in turn, have individual user
names/logon identities to prevent unauthorised access to the
system. Organisations would be required to maintain
accurate lists of individual operators and to remove those
who should no longer have access.
S7 Do you have any views on the proposed list of
Authorised Users?
Confirming entitlement to access restricted data
6.4.32 One of the main difficulties with having a system
that restricts access to some people, is ensuring that only
those entitled to access the information are able to do so.
There would be legal provisions setting out who can access
the restricted information and requiring the Registrar
General to satisfy himself of their entitlement.
6.4.33 To underpin this, safeguards and privilege levels
would be built in to the computerised central database that
would go a long way to prevent unauthorised access. As the
use of other technical solutions, such as digital certificates
and signatures and the Government Authentication
Framework (GAF), become more widespread, these too would be used to confirm
entitlement and ensure
appropriate access to the central database. There would be
no access restrictions for open information.
6.4.34 However, for the foreseeable future, registration
records would be available in a variety of media (electronic,
paper registers, microfilm, etc) and access would be possible
via a number of routes (Internet, in person, telephone, etc).
Ideally the same authentication process would apply across
the board, but in practice, different methods will be needed
for the various access channels.
6.4.35 Anyone wanting to access restricted data in person
via a registration authority is likely to need to provide proof
of their identity and entitlement to that information. The
Government is likely to define what constitutes acceptable
proof of identity as part of its wider policy development.
6.4.36 Access to restricted information will not be
available by telephone via the national contact centre in the
short-term. Consideration would be given to the viability of
doing so in the long-term. As any registration record will be
available from any registration authority, this should not
represent a major disadvantage to individuals, nor restrict
their opportunity to access modern registration information.
6.4.37 Paragraph 6.3.3 describes how registration records
will be computerised in stages. It is proposed to put in place
transitional arrangements to cover records that have not yet
been computerised. For these records, the current
arrangements of providing information via certificates
would remain in place. This would have the benefit of
removing the difficulty of applying the access framework to
paper records and remove that burden from those who
would have to do it. It would also be easier to understand
from the public¹s point of view.
6.4.38 Once records have been captured electronically,
access to them would mostly be via the central database
(whether directly, via local registration offices or the contact
centre). This would allow the application of the access
framework and the confirmation of entitlement to be
consistently applied. It would also ensure that the privacy of
individuals is protected once records are in a digitised
environment. At that stage, the access framework would also
apply to records in the original paper format. There would
be arrangements in place to ensure that the restricted
information remains confidential when accessing paper
registers and records (see Chapter 7 for further details).
Issuing certifi cates and documents from the
system
6.4.39 As described in paragraph 6.4.15, the move to an
electronic system for registration would allow the phasing
out of certificates. However, during the transitional period
when modern records are being computerised, there would
continue to be a need to issue paper certificates. These
would be available as now, both locally from the district in
which the event took place and from the Registrar General.
The provisions in the Registration Acts would be amended
to take account of the introduction of electronic systems
and the changes to the organisation and staffing of
registration authorities (see Chapter 10). There would
continue to be a statutory fee for the issue of certificates.
6.4.40 The provisions for issuing short birth certificates
will also remain in place with similar amendments. There
will be new provisions for issuing short death certificates
(see paragraph 2.4.16).
6.4.41 Long-term, when all records have been
computerised, certificates would only be required in a small
number of cases such as for legal purposes and for use in
official transactions abroad. At this stage, certificates would
only be issued by the Registrar General for a statutory fee.
The Registrar General will either use existing powers to
prescribe the form of these certificates and the fee that will
apply for them or it would be included in subordinate
provisions to the order. The statutory fee would initially be
set at the same level as the current fee for a certificate, eg £7.
6.4.42 The provisions in the Registration Acts that define
under what circumstances entries and certificates can be
used as evidence would continue (S34 of the BDRA 1953
and S65(3) of the MA 1949). These would be amended to
reflect the introduction of electronic systems.
6.4.43 Members of the public may want to obtain
documents (other than certificates) from the database as a
reference or to mark a meaningful event. It would be
possible to produce such types of documents. They could be
either paper copies (screen prints) or more elaborate
documents, for example of a commemorative type. Neither
type of document would have any legal or evidential value.
It is proposed to put in place provisions enabling the
Registrar General and registration authorities to produce
both these types of documents.
6.4.44 A paper copy showing the information that has
been recorded would be issued at the time of registration,
either to the person registering by telephone, in the case of
births, still-births and deaths, or to the couple, in the case of
marriages (see paragraphs 2.2.14, 2.3.10, 2.4.10 and
3.4.111). This first paper copy would be issued free. Internet
users would be able to print a paper copy themselves).
Amongst other purposes, it would allow the person
registering the event remotely or the couple to check and
confirm the details. People registering births, still-births and
deaths face to face would be able to check the information
on the screen. It would be possible to obtain further paper copies of the
information as recorded. It is proposed that
there should a statutory fee for the issue of subsequent paper
copies. The fee would be set out in subordinate provisions to
the order and would apply both centrally and locally. The
fee will initially be set at £6. It is also proposed to allow the
Registrar General and registration authorities to charge nonstatutory
fees for producing more elaborate documents. The
charges for these will be set locally. It is proposed that the
fee for a commemorative document issued by the Registrar
General should remain at £40.
6.4.45 Paper copies of registration records would be
available from any registration authority or centrally via the
call centre. This model would ensure that customers were
able to obtain a standard document for the same fee from
any registration authority. It also gives registration
authorities an opportunity to extend the service they offer to
their customers by offering other types of more elaborate
documents in response to public demand. This is in line
with well being powers bestowed on local authorities in S2
of the Local Government Act 2000. Where access
restrictions apply, documents would only be issued showing
the open information. Documents showing both open and
restricted information would only be made available to
those people who are entitled to the full record.
6.4.46 Other chapters have described proposals for the
provision of services in Welsh (see sections 2.5 and 3.8). It is
proposed that certificates issued for events that have been
registered in both English and Welsh would be in a bi-lingual
format. Other types of document issued from the system
could be in English only, Welsh only or in bi-lingual format.
Sanctions and penalties
6.4.47 There would be a new offence of deliberately
tampering or damaging records on the central database. This
offence would provide protection to electronic registration
records created as part of the new system.
6.4.48 The offence relating to the falsifying of certificates
(S37 of the BDRA 1953) would also continue. The Registrar
General would be able to withdraw access to the information
in the event of any non-compliance with the access
framework. It would become an offence to access a record
where permission has been withdrawn or not provided by the
individual, their family or representative. A system for
monitoring compliance would be developed. These offences
are necessary to maintain the security and integrity of
registration records and the information they contain.
Regulatory Reform Order tests and safeguards
access
Removal and reduction of burdens
6.4.49 The requirement to produce indexes to registration
records (except still-birth records) will be removed (S30(1),
S30(1A) and S31(1) of the BDRA 1953 and S64(1) and
S65(1) of the MA 1949). Likewise, the requirement to allow
searches of these indexes (S30(2) and S31(2) of the BDRA
1953 and S64(2) and S65(2) of the MA 1949) will also be
removed. In time, the requirement on the Registrar General
and superintendent registrars to produce certificates will be
removed (S30(2), S31(2) and S33 of the BDRA 1953 and
S64(2) and S65(2) of the MA 1949). These burdens will not
be required in the long term as the need for certificates for
official purposes is removed. Finally, the requirement on
registrars and holders of marriage registers to allow searches
in registers they hold and to issue certificates will be
removed (S32 of the BDRA 1953 and S63 of the MA
1949). These are burdens on the Registrar General and
registration staff both centrally and locally, who produce the
indexes and allow searches, and the public who carry out the
searches to identify records. The removal of these burdens
will not remove any necessary protection. The creation of
indexes would no longer be necessary once registration
records are computerised. Searching facilities would be built
into the central database to allow records to be identified.
These facilities would be more sophisticated and easier to
use than the current indexes.
6.4.50 The provisions giving the Registrar General
discretion for making available still-birth records will remain
(S30(3) of the BDRA 1953). These are a burden on him
and on the parents of still-born children. However, it would
no longer be necessary to release the information via
certificates. This would result in the reduction of the burden
on the Registrar General and on the parents (and siblings) of
still-born children, whilst maintaining the protection these
measures provide.
6.4.51 The provisions in the Registration Acts that define
under what circumstances entries and certificates can be
used as evidence would continue (S34 of the BDRA 1953
and S65(3) of the MA 1949). These are a burden on the
Registrar General and registration officers and those who
use registration records. These would be amended to reflect
the introduction of electronic systems. The overall burden
would reduce in light of the overall package of proposals for
civil registration. The provisions are necessary to ensure that
registration records are still acceptable as evidence that an
event has taken place.
Re-enactment of provisions imposing burdens
6.4.52 There will be no re-enactment of existing
provisions that impose burdens.
Burdens imposed
6.4.53 The Register General and registration officers will
continue to have powers to issue certificates over the
transitional period, including short certificates (S30(2), S31(2) and S33 of
the BDRA 1953 and S64(2) and S65(2)
of the MA 1949). In the long-term, only the Registrar
General will be able to issue certificates. This proposal will
be a burden on the Registrar General who will issue
certificates and on those people who need to obtain them.
However, the facility for accessing and verifying registration
information directly on the central database will make this a
lighter, reduced burden than existing ones.
6.4.54 The proposal to restrict access to some information
in modern records would introduce a new legal burden on
the Registrar General and registration authorities, who
would be required to implement the provisions, and on
users of registration information, who would be required to
comply with them. This proposal would be translated into
new provisions in the order specifying who can access the
restricted information and under what conditions. The
restrictions will also apply to the issuing of documents from
the system.
6.4.55 The requirements to make available restricted
information where consent has been given and to establish
the entitlement of those wanting to access the restricted
information are also burdens on the Registrar General and
registration authorities (who will need to confirm
entitlement and release the information) and on those
wanting to access the information (who will have to prove
their entitlement). The use of modern technology will help
to reduce these burdens as it would be possible to include
technological solutions on the central database to help
control access to the records and information.
6.4.56 Under the new framework, there would be an
additional burden on some Government Departments and
Agencies (eg DVLA, UKPS) and other organisations (banks
and insurance companies) of having to obtain consent to
access the restricted information on records. Members of the
public wishing to access the restricted information would
have the burden of having to confirm their identity and
entitlement to that information. Similarly, there would be
an additional burden on registration officers, both central
and local, who would be required to confirm that applicants
requesting to access restricted information were entitled to
do so. These burdens can be juxtaposed against the overall
benefits to users who will have quicker and easier access to
information from many locations.
6.4.57 The proposal to appoint Authorised Users would
also impose a new burden on those private and public sector
organisations that apply to become such users. However,
being accredited as an Authorised User would be in the
interest of those organisations and persons who use
registration records heavily and who require access to the
restricted information.
6.4.58 There will be an additional burden on Authorised
Users to maintain accurate lists of those individual operators
that have access to the central database and to remove those
who should no longer have access. This burden is necessary
to safeguard the security of the system and to prevent any
unauthorised access.
6.4.59 The introduction of a fee for accessing records on
the central database would be a new burden on users of
registration records, who would be required to pay it, and
on the Registrar General and registration authorities, that
would be responsible for collecting it.
6.4.60 There will be a new offence of deliberately
tampering with or damaging the central database or records
it contains. This offence mirrors the existing offence of
damaging registers. It is necessary to protect against wilful
damage to the central database and registration records.
6.4.61 The creation of an offence for accessing registration
records when consent has not been given or has been
withdrawn will create a new burden on those accessing
registration records, particularly Authorised Users. There
will also be a new burden upon the Registrar General to
withdraw access to the database in cases of non-compliance
with the access framework. These burdens are necessary to
ensure the security of the registration records and to protect
the wishes and privacy of individuals and their families.
6.4.62 The proposal to provide for the issuing of paper
copies of registration records will be a burden on the
Registrar General and registration authorities, who will
produce them. The introduction of a statutory fee for all but
the first paper copy issued at the time of remote registrations
will be a burden on the public who will need to pay the fee.
The fee would be set out in subordinate provisions to the
order. This burden is necessary to protect the public and to
ensure that everyone is able to purchase a standard
document for the same fee from any registration authority.
6.4.63 The introduction of provisions enabling the
Registrar General and registration authorities to produce
other documents from the system and to charge nonstatutory
fees for these are also burdens on the Registrar
General and on registration authorities. These burdens will
however allow them to extend the range of services they
offer their customers and to react to requests or public
demand for elaborate documents to commemorate major
life events. This is, in turn, in line with well being powers
bestowed on local authorities in S2 of the Local
Government Act 2000.
Fair balance, desirability and proportionality
6.4.64 As a condition of re-stating existing burdens and
creating new ones that will affect people wanting to access the registration
records of people born less than 100 years
ago, the Minister making an order under the Regulatory
Reform Act 2001 must be of the opinion that
(a) the provisions of the order, taken as a whole, strike a fair
balance between the public interest (those who may
have an interest in registration information or who as
taxpayers pay for the registration service and other
Government services) and the interests of the persons
affected by the burdens being re-stated or created (the
individuals named in records and their families,
registration staff and those who use registration
information); and
(b) the extent to which the order removes or reduces one or
more burdens, or has other beneficial effects for persons
affected by the burdens imposed by the existing law
(registration staff and individuals named in records and
users of registration information), makes it desirable for
the order to be made.
The 2001 Act also requires that any burden created or
restated must be proportionate to the benefits that flow
from it.
6.4.65 In the Minister¹s view, the burdens created are
proportionate to the benefits that will result from the new
system, and the Minister may properly reach the opinions
outlined above. The provisions do strike a fair balance
between the general public¹s interest in registration
information and the interests of those who will use the
information. Further, the benefits to those people named in
the records and their families makes it desirable that the
order should be made.
6.4.66 Overall, the burdens created are proportionate to
the benefits that would result from them for individuals,
public and private sector organisations and society as a
whole in terms of the reduction in the potential for fraud,
the protection of privacy, the delivery of joined-up services,
streamlined processing, etc. In the long term, they would
result in an improved, more secure and more responsive
system for citizens to interact with Government and other
organisations and a reduction in the overall cost to the
public purse.
6.4.67 The proposals for access would protect the privacy
of individuals and their family and safeguard their personal
information by restricting access to those details that, if
openly available, could cause them distress, embarrassment
or harm. At the same time, the framework maintains the
openness of registration records by making most of the
record available and therefore recognises that there is a
genuine public interest in registration information. The
proposals would ensure that the physical security of the
information is maintained, as will the new offence of
tampering or damaging the records on the central database.
They will also help to build trust in the system. These wideranging
benefits make the introduction of the burdens
desirable. They also strike a fair balance between the public
interest and the interests of those affected.
6.4.68 With the move to a computerised system for civil
registration, the Government feels that the introduction of
the burdens relating to access is necessary and justifiable.
Electronic systems make finding and relating information
about individuals from various sources much quicker and
easier. Without proper safeguards, that are in accord with
the principles of Data Protection and Freedom of
Information legislation, it could lead to the privacy of
individuals and their families being compromised, to
unwelcome contact from direct-mail companies and to the
fraudulent use of information.
6.4.69 The burdens of having to prove entitlement and
obtaining consent to access the restricted information are
necessary and desirable to protect those named in the
records and their families. They are proportionate as they
will continue to allow persons and organisations with a
genuine need to have access to the information. Overall, the
burdens balance the needs of those named in the records,
those administering the system and those who use the
information. The new offence relating to accessing records
without consent will help to underpin these provisions.
6.4.70 Retaining the provisions for producing certificates
is necessary to ensure that they are available in those
circumstances where they will still be required postcomputerisation
(i.e. for presentation abroad and in court).
It will prevent individuals from being disadvantaged. The
provisions will also ensure everyone is able to use and access
registration information during the period of
computerisation. The burdens are therefore necessary and
desirable. The burdens will be minimised by electronically
capturing those registration records that are most widely
used for official purposes in the early stages. This will also
help to balance the interests of those requiring access to
registration information and of those required to produce
the certificates.
6.4.71 The proposed access framework and the withdrawal
of paper certificates from official transactions would have a
significant impact on the fraudulent use of personal
information. The restricted information could be used to
check whether the person applying for benefits or services is
indeed that person. Reducing the potential for fraud would
protect the public purse.
6.4.72 The proposals for allowing the production of paper
copies and other documents from the system will strike a
fair balance between the needs of those who will produce the documents (the
Registrar General and registration
authorities) and those of the public and other users of
registration records, who will want to obtain them. Allowing
any registration authority to issue such documents will
increase their availability and will benefit the public. The
introduction of the statutory fee for paper copies (in most
circumstances) will ensure that a standard document is
available from every registration authority. Again, this will
be of benefit to the public. The application of the access
restrictions to documents issued from the system is desirable
and proportionate as it will ensure that the access framework
is consistently applied and will help to protect the privacy of
individuals and the integrity of the information.
6.4.73 The burdens associated with the appointment and
maintenance of Authorised Users are proportionate to the
benefits that will result from these proposals. Organisations
and persons appointed as Authorised Users will have quicker,
direct access to the central database and will be able to offer
an improved service to their customers. The safeguards built
into the system will protect against unauthorised access to
registration information. The Government considers that the
overall burden on organisations would be negligible in light
of the benefits that would result from the proposals and that
it is therefore proportionate. There would be safeguards built
into the process for appointing these users to ensure that the
security of the database and of the personal information it
holds is not compromised.
6.4.74 The charge for accessing records on the central
database will replace the current fees for purchasing
certificates. The proposed access charges are less than the
current cost of a certificate The move to a computerised
system will remove many of the burdens and inconveniences
associated with operating a paper system. The Minister
considers an access charge would be proportionate to the
benefits that would arise from having faster and better
availability of registration records and improved searching
facilities.
6.4.75 The burdens associated with the creation of the
new offences are necessary to ensure the long-term physical
protection of records on the central database and to prevent
unauthorised access to the restricted information. The
protection that will be delivered more than outweighs the
burden created by the offences and makes it desirable for the
order to be made. The offences balance the interests of those
who use the records, those named in them and those
required to monitor compliance.
Necessary protection
6.4.76 The Minister is of the view that the proposals for
accessing modern registration records would not remove any
necessary protection, but would in fact increase the
protection and security of registration records and personal
information. The role of registration records would not
change. They will not be used as proof of identity but would
continue to record that an event has taken place.
6.4.77 Modern registration records would continue to be
available to those people who are interested in them, and
would, in most instances, be more open and easily accessible
than at present. Registration information would continue to
be used as part of the verification process for accessing
Government services and benefits, as well as some in the
private sector. The process for doing so will be simpler. It
would allow people to obtain the services and benefits, to
which they are entitled, thus continuing to protect the
individual and society.
6.4.78 Restricting access to some information in the
records of people less than 100 years of age is important in a
computerised environment as finding and matching records
becomes easier and quicker, thus potentially threatening
people¹s privacy. The proposed access framework would
ensure that those people with a legitimate need to access the
restricted information would continue to be able to do so.
6.4.79 There would be a clear eligibility framework
available to registration staff to ensure that only those who
are entitled to access the restricted information in fact do so.
The framework would help to make the process of
confirming entitlement as straightforward as possible.
6.4.80 The appointment of Authorised Users would not
remove any necessary protection. Authorised Users would
still be required to obtain any necessary permission before
accessing restricted information. They would be governed by
the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, so that they
would only be able to access the restricted data in relation,
for example, to a particular application. Technical tools such
as log-on identities and passwords would be used to ensure
that there is no unauthorised access to the central database.
The introduction of an offence to access restricted
registration information without permission will protect the
wishes and privacy of individuals as well as the overall
security of the system.
6.4.81 The proposals to charge a statutory fee for a
standard paper copy will protect the interests of the general
public by introducing a standard service. Any documents
produced would only contain the information to which the
applicant is entitled. This will ensure that the privacy of
individuals is protected and the security of registration
information is safeguarded.
6.4.82 The offences that will be in place will ensure the
necessary protection of the physical security of registration
information and will, in turn, protect individuals, society
and the public purse. Rights and freedoms
6.4.83 The rights of people to claim benefits, access public
and private services and settle the estates of the deceased
would not affect by the proposals.
6.4.84 The proposed access framework would allow those
with an interest in modern registration records to continue to
be able to access the majority of the information contained in
them, thus protecting the rights and freedoms they now enjoy.
In fact, access to most of the information would be better than
in the current system as it would be possible to look at the
records themselves rather than use an index that contains very
little information to identify the required record.
6.4.85 However, it is accepted that for a few groups of users
of civil registration information, (eg genealogists), access to
modern records would be more limited than it is at present.
This limitation to existing rights would, in the short term,
only apply to modern records that have been computerised. It
is necessary to ensure that the privacy of those named on the
record or related to them, the security of the information and
in order to prevent fraud. These considerations become
increasing important in an electronic environment where
finding and matching information is easier and quicker. The
Minister feels that, overall, this limitation to existing rights is
proportionate and necessary. The Minister also considers that
groups such as genealogists cannot reasonably expect to
continue to enjoy the same level of access to modern records,
due to the security concerns described.
6.4.86 Genealogists and other users of modern registration
records affected by these proposals will continue to be able
to access most of the information on the records. They will
be able to access the restricted information with permission
and will be able to use other sources to confirm that the
record they have identified is, in fact, the one they require.
6.4.87 The proposed restrictions would be balanced in
some measure by the benefits that will flow from the new
system for accessing modern registration records. The creation
of a central database would give the public fuller access to the
open information on modern registration records, better
searching facilities and lead to financial savings for public and
private organisations that use registration information. It
would also give people more flexibility and choice about when
and where they consult registration records.
6.4.88 Organisations and others will be able to apply to
become Authorised Users. If they do not choose to do so,
they would still be able to access restricted information,
subject to obtaining consent. However, it is likely to be a
quicker and less burdensome process and will result in
savings and benefits to them.
6.4.89 The offences associated with accessing records
without consent and with falsifying documents will not
prevent anyone from exercising any right or freedom they
can reasonably expect to continue to enjoy.
6.4.90 Enabling the Registrar General and registration
authorities to produce more elaborate documents from the
system and to charge non-statutory fees for these will
protect their right to develop their services and to meet the
needs of their customers.
Costs and savings
6.4.91 There would be significant savings to Government
Departments and Agencies and other organisations from
simplifying their processes and from not having to handle
paper documents. Although there would be costs to these
organisations of accessing the central database and of
obtaining consent, these are likely to be lower than their
current processing costs and would therefore represent a
saving. There would be potential savings too from the
reduction in fraud and the fraudulent use of information.
6.4.92 The phasing out of certificates would also result in
financial savings for citizens as well as potential savings to their
time. Those people who use registration records for research
would have the additional cost of accessing the central
database. The proposed access charges are less than the current
cost of purchasing certificates and would be complimented by
potential savings to their time and travelling costs.
We would welcome views on whether the proposed system for
accessing registration records satisfies the regulatory reform tests
and safeguards.
Questions
In respect of accessing registration records:
101. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections
for those affected?
102. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing
to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might
reasonably expect to continue?
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.
104. Do you have any views on the costs and savings
identified?
105. Are there any other benefits that would be gained
from the proposals?
6.5 Data sharing and data transfer
Current situation
6.5.1 Registration information cannot be released unless
it is in the form of a certificate or if there are legislative
arrangements either for the Registrar General or for local
registrars to do so. The list of statutes that provide for the
release of registration information is at Appendix 6B.
6.5.2 Electronic systems make data sharing and data
transfer easier than traditional media. As Government
services become computerised, the possibilities for data
sharing increase, as do its benefits. The Government has set
stretching targets for the delivery of electronic services in the
public sector in the 1999 White Paper Modernising
Government. The availability of electronic civil registration
records is essential to delivering fully computerised
Government transactions.
Proposals
6.5.3 The introduction of electronic registration
information would facilitate the development of automated
processes in other Government Departments and Agencies
such as UKPS, DVLA and DWP. The Data Protection Act
1998 would ensure that data sharing and data transfer is
carried out within a framework that protects the individual.
6.5.4 Some features of the proposed framework for data
use are described below:
The central and local registration service would be able
to access all registration information for registration
purposes only.
Some organisations, such as ONS and DWP, would
have legally prescribed access to registration information
for specific purposes.
There would be provisions to notify automatically, in
specific circumstances, Government Departments (and
other organisations) when events take place. So, for
example, DWP would be notified of all deaths. They
would be able to use this information to stop the
payment of pensions and benefits when appropriate.
Exactly which organisations would receive automatic
notifications would be set out in law, as would the
information they receive, as happens now.
In other instances, organisations would be able to access
the restricted information with the express consent of
the individual. So for example, when a person applies
for a passport, UKPS would need to obtain their
permission to access the restricted items contained in
their registration records.
The public would be able to give their consent for
specified Government Departments and Agencies and
some other organisations to be notified that an event
has taken place.
Medical and social researchers working on formally
approved projects may be given access to restricted
information subject to National Statistics codes of
practice and protocols. For medical studies, researchers
would also need to obtain ethical approval from
Medical Ethics Committees. Any research would be
published in a form that did not identify individuals.
6.5.5 The existing provisions for releasing registration
information to some Government Departments will remain
in place. These provisions are included in legislation that is
outside the control of the Registrar General. This would
ensure that important processes, monitoring and research
that are dependent on registration information could
continue.
Regulatory Reform Order tests and safeguards
data sharing and data transfer
Removal and reduction of burdens
6.5.6 The proposals for data sharing and data transfer,
combined with the proposals to phase out the use of
certificates, would remove some of the constraints in current
legislation which only allows for the release of information
either in the form of a certificate, or where there is specific
statutory cover to do so. These constraints are burdens of
the Registrar General and registration officers who make
information available and organisations that use the
information. However, the proposals would not remove any
necessary protection as there would be a clear framework for
data sharing, that would, in many instances require the
consent of the individual or their representative. Similarly
the proposals will not prevent anyone from exercising a right
or freedom they would reasonably expect to continue to
exercise. Registration information would continue to be
central to many official processes and allow individuals to
receive the benefits and services to which they are entitled.
6.5.7 The proposals for automatic notification of
registration information, data sharing and data linkage
would help to deliver joined-up Government services to
citizens. It would remove the burden on individuals of
having to apply for different services separately. Individuals
would be able to give information once and for this to be
used in a variety of ways, with their permission and subject
to legislation. These proposals would result in a more
straightforward and more coherent service to the citizen.
Re-enactment of provisions imposing burdens
6.5.8 There will be no re-enactment of provisions that
impose burdens.
Burdens imposed
6.5.9 New provisions to allow for the automatic
notification of registration information to certain organisations will be a
new legal burden on the Registrar
General and registration authorities. The details of who will
receive information and what exactly they will receive will
be set out in subordinate provisions to the order.
6.5.10 The Minister considers that these new requirements
are proportionate to the benefits that are expected to result
from their creation in terms of improved, more reactive and
joined-up services to the public. Once registration records
are captured electronically on the central database,
extracting information for transfer should be straightforward
and require minimum intervention as it could be done
automatically.
Fair balance, desirability and proportionality
6.5.11 As a condition of re-stating existing burdens and
creating new ones that will affect how registration
information is used and released, the Minister making an
order under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 must be of the
opinion that
(a) the provisions of the order, taken as a whole, strike a fair
balance between the public interest (those who may
have an interest in registration information or who as
taxpayers pay for the registration service and other
Government services) and the interests of the persons
affected by the burdens being re-stated or created (the
users of registration information); and
(b) the extent to which the order removes or reduces one or
more burdens, or has other beneficial effects for persons
affected by the burdens imposed by the existing law
(users of registration information and the public),
makes it desirable for the order to be made.
The 2001 Act also requires that any burden created or restated
must be proportionate to the benefits that flow from
it.
6.5.12 In the Minister¹s view, the burdens created are
proportionate to the benefits that will result from the new
system, and the Minister may properly reach the opinions
outlined above. The improvements to the use and
availability of registration information strike a fair balance
between the public interest and the interests of those who
will use the information. Further, the benefits to those
people who are the subject of registration records and to the
organisations that use them make it desirable that the order
should be made.
6.5.13 The proposals for automatic notification and data
sharing will make information available more quickly to
organisations that require it and will help to ensure, for
example, that benefits are paid promptly or stopped when
no longer applicable. This will help protect the public purse.
Data sharing and data transfer will speed up and simplify
processes, improve the quality of information and reduce
fraud. The proposals will also help to deliver improved,
more reactive and joined-up services to the public. They
strike a fair balance between the interests of individuals and
those of organisations that use registration information. The
benefits that will arise from the proposals more than
outweigh the burdens created and make their introduction
desirable.
6.5.14 The proposals and associated burdens are also
proportionate and desirable from the point of view of the
citizen. They will reduce burdens on individuals by
improving the way information about them is used and will
deliver a better service to them, whilst maintaining all the
necessary safeguards.
6.5.15 All registration information would continue to be
available for legitimate social and medical research and for
public health purposes, which are in the public interest.
Necessary protection
6.5.16 The Minister is of the view that none of the current
protections will be removed by introducing provisions for
data sharing and data transfer. The framework for data
sharing and data linkage will ensure that the individual is
protected and that information is only used where there is
specific provision to do so or where permission has been
given by the individual concerned. The proposals will also
protect the public purse by ensuring that benefits are paid
where appropriate.
6.5.17 Continuing to make registration information
available to Government Departments and other bodies will
ensure that the protection that comes from accurate
monitoring and research also continues.
Rights and freedoms
6.5.18 The proposals will not prevent any person from
continuing to exercise any right or freedom which he or she
might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. Registration
information will continue to be available for public and
private sector transactions and will continue to allow people
to obtain the services and benefits to which they are entitled.
It will also continue to be available to organisations that
require it.
Costs and savings
6.5.19 The proposals for data sharing and data transfer
will simplify, speed up and improve the way registration
information is used within Government and in the public
sector. They will result in savings to the public purse from
delivering joined-up Government services and from sharing
information as well as for individuals from having more
responsive and co-ordinated services from Government and
the private sector. These proposals, combined with the proposals for
removing the use of certificates for most
official purposes, will also result in savings for organisations
who currently handle paper certificates and to individuals
who supply them.
6.5.20 There may be costs associated with developing
systems to allow data sharing but these will be offset by the
savings and other benefits that will result from the
proposals.
We would welcome views on whether the proposed system for
using and releasing registration information satisfies the
regulatory reform tests and safeguards.
Questions
In respect of data sharing and data transfer:
106. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections
for those affected?
107. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing
to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might
reasonably expect to continue?
108. 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.
109. Do you have any views on the costs and savings
identified?
110. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from
the proposals?
6.6 Historic records
Current situation
6.6.1 As with modern records, access to historic records
(those relating to people born over 100 years ago) is only
possible by purchasing certificates. It has long been argued
by the users of these records (mainly genealogists and family
historians) that this framework is overly restrictive and
expensive. They argue that other records, such as the Census,
are openly available 100 years after their creation and that
the same should apply to historic registration records.
Proposals for change
6.6.2 It is proposed to improve access to the birth,
marriage and death records of people born over 100 years
ago, whether living or deceased. This would be achieved by
making them fully available, without the need to purchase
certificates and without any access restrictions. It is possible
that there would be a charge to access these records (see
paragraph 6.4.15).
6.6.3 In addition, it is intended that these records
should be made available in an electronic form. The
computerisation could be taken forward by the not-forprofit
sector (see paragraph 6.2.5). Computerisation would
improve the availability and accessibility of these historic
records and would include tools for searching and
identifying records. It would remove many of the current
constraints that make researching historic records
burdensome.
6.6.4 Since 1938 certain additional information has been
collected at the registration of births and deaths in England
and Wales for statistical purposes (see Chapter 9). Making
this information available when these records become
historic, where it is possible to do so, would provide the
fullest amount of data about a particular birth or death. We
would welcome any views about this.
6.6.5 Access restrictions would be lifted to make records
fully open on the 100th anniversary of a person¹s birth. This
would allow the privacy and confidentiality of most living
people and their families to be protected. However,
information that is not normally accessible would be fully
available for people who live to be over 100 years of age
and, for deceased people, on the 100th anniversary of their
birth. To put this in context, the information that would
become available would be the addresses and occupations
recorded on the birth record, the addresses, occupations
and cause of death on the death record and addresses and
occupations at the time of any marriages. Subject to views
expressed (see paragraph 6.6.4), the release of statistical
information would also be permitted. The release of this
historic information for people living to be over 100 years
of age is likely to have minimum impact on their privacy or
that of their families, but the Government would welcome
any views on this.
6.6.6 It is estimated that there were approximately 8000
people aged 100 years or over in England and Wales in
2002. Although the number of people living for more than
100 years is increasing, it is still very small. These proposals
would protect the majority of living people. The effect on
those people who live to be over 100 years of age would be
minimal and would be proportionate to the benefits that
would result for the rest of the population and to the public
who have an interest in that information. When these
people died, all the information in their death record would
become available almost immediately. The statistical
information about their death would not be released for
100 years.
6.6.7 Birth and death records relate to one single person,
although information about other people is included in the
record. For marriages, the record relates to two people, the
bride and groom. There are two options when it comes to opening up marriage
records: to do so according to the age
of the elder of the couple or to do so according to the age of
the younger.
6.6.8 Releasing the restricted information when the elder
of the couple reaches 100 years of age (whether living or
deceased) would mean that some information about the
younger person would be available earlier that it would
normally be. The information in question would be his or
her address and occupation at the time of the marriage.
6.6.9 Using the age of the elder spouse to determine
when marriage records would become fully available would
allow all records relating to that person to be classified in the
same way and to be available at the same time. This would
make the new access framework easier to administer and
simpler to understand from the point of view of the users of
registration records. Given the amount of restricted
information that would be released about the younger
person, the impact on their privacy and on the
confidentiality of their records would be minimal.
6.6.10 On the other hand, opening up marriage records
fully according to the age of the younger of the couple
would ensure that no restricted information was available
before the 100 year threshold. The consequences would be
that information that would normally be available (that
relating to the elder spouse) would not be. It would also
mean that it would be difficult for researchers to make sense
of the older person¹s life records as not all of them would be
available at the same time. There could be difficulties during
the transitional period in deciding whether records should
be made available and could lead to delays in releasing
historic records for digitisation.
6.6.11 On balance, the Government feels that it would be
better to use the age of the elder of the couple to determine
when the restricted information on historic marriage records
is released. This model would be simpler administratively
and would, in turn, reduce the costs to users, individuals and
the public purse. It would ensure records were fully available
at the earliest opportunity. The impact on the younger
person from releasing the restricted information would be
minimal given the likely passage of time since the record was
created and would be proportionate to the benefits to the rest
of the population and the public interest in the information.
Regulatory Reform Order tests and safeguards
historic records
Removal and reduction of burdens
6.6.12 As for modern records (see paragraphs 6.4.22
6.4.24 and 6.4.496.4.51), making historic records available
without the need to purchase certificates will remove a
number of burdens on the Registrar General, superintendent
registrars and registrars. These burdens are associated with
the production of indexes and the issue and purchase of
certificates. This will benefit the public and other users of
these records such as genealogists, who have long argued
that historic records should be more easily accessible. No
necessary protection would be removed nor any rights or
freedoms affected.
Re-enactment of provisions imposing burdens
6.6.13 No provisions will be re-enacted as a result of these
proposals.
Burdens imposed
6.6.14 Making available the records of persons aged over
100 years will be a burden, in the short term, on the
Registrar General and registration authorities. The burden
will be less than at present as there will be no constraints on
how the information is made available. As historic records
are computerised, probably by the not-for-profit sector, this
burden will significantly reduce. What will remain will be
the requirement to pass over records as they reach the
historic threshold. If the computerisation of historic records
is delayed or not forthcoming, then this burden will remain.
6.6.15 The provisions for releasing marriage records when
the elder of the couple reaches 100 years will be a new
burden on the Registrar General and registration authorities.
They will be required to ensure the correct records are made
available. Again, this burden will reduce significantly over
time as registration records are captured electronically and
the system is able to select those records that are available.
6.6.16 If it is decided to release statistical information
when records become historic, it would impose a new
burden on the Registrar General, although this would not
commence for several decades.
Fair balance, desirability and proportionality
6.6.17 As a condition of creating new burdens that will
affect how the registration records of people over 100 years
of age are accessed, the Minister making an order under the
Regulatory Reform Act 2001 must be of the opinion that:
(a) the provisions of the order, taken as a whole, strike a fair
balance between the public interest (those who may
have an interest in registration information or who as
taxpayers pay for the registration service) and the
interests of the persons affected by the burdens being
created (registration staff and those who use registration
information); and
(b) the extent to which the order removes or reduces one or
more burdens, or has other beneficial effects for persons
affected by the burdens imposed by the existing law
(registration staff and users of registration information),
makes it desirable for the order to be made. The 2001 Act also requires that
any burden created must be
proportionate to the benefits that flow from it.
6.6.18 In the Minister¹s view, the burdens created are
proportionate to the benefits that will result from the new
system, and the Minister may properly reach the opinions
outlined above. The provisions do strike a fair balance
between the general public¹s interest in registration
information and the interests the Registrar General and
registration authorities who will be affected by the burdens.
Further, the benefits to those people who are the subject of
registration records and to the organisations that use them
make it desirable that the order should be made.
6.6.19 The overall benefits of the proposals for releasing
historic records are improvements to the availability of
historic registration records and more choice for users about
where and when they consult records. These benefits
counterbalance the burdens that will be introduced. These
burdens will reduce over time and are proportionate. The
benefits also make the proposals desirable for users of
registration records and society more generally.
6.6.20 Releasing statistical information for historic records
would also be desirable as it would make a new source of
information available for the first time. The information
would be of interest to users of historic registration records.
Making this information available would be in line with the
move to greater openness and would be seen to be in the
public interest. The burden of releasing the information will
be relatively small and would be proportionate to the
benefits that will result.
Necessary protection
6.6.21 The proposals to fully open registration records for
people born over 100 years ago will protect the majority of
people and safeguard their privacy and that of their families.
It is accepted that for those people who live to be over 100
years of age, the proposals would result in some information
about them being available while they were still alive. Given
the very small number of people in this age group and the
relatively small amount of information that will be made
available, the Minister is of the view that the removal of any
protection is proportionate to the benefits that will result for
the overall population and for the public interest. The
Minister is also of the view that, given the nature of the
information that will be available, the proposal does not
remove any protection that it is necessary to maintain.
6.6.22 The consequences of the proposal to make marriage
records fully available 100 years after the birth of the elder
of the couple will result in information about the younger
person being available before the anniversary of their 100th
birthday. The amount of additional information that would
be released about the younger person would only be their
address and occupation at the time of the marriage. On
balance, the Minister is of the view that the removal of any
protection is proportionate to the benefits that will result to
individuals and users of the records in terms of cost, ease of
access and general availability of information. Again, due to
the nature of this information the Minister is of the view
that the proposal does not remove any protection that needs
to be maintained. Overall the proposals would be in the
public interest.
Rights and freedoms
6.6.23 The proposals will allow the majority of people to
continue to exercise the rights and freedoms that they might
reasonably expect to continue to exercise. For researchers,
the proposals will actually result in an improvement to the
rights they currently enjoy. In addition, the proposals will,
for the first time, make historic records available for
computerisation.
6.6.24 As with the central database, computerisation of
historic records will give users more choice on where and
when they consult the records. They will no longer need to
travel to places that hold copies of indexes or to physically
order the certificates, saving them time and effort. Instead,
they will be able to access the historic database from home
computers, interactive television, kiosks, other Internet
access points and at times and in places that are more
convenient. The computerised system will have an in-built
search engine, which will allow people using the records to
refine their search or search on a variety of fields.
Costs and savings
6.6.25 The service for the production of certificates, both
locally and centrally, is provided on a full cost recovery basis.
Notwithstanding this principle, it is reasonable to say that
people who use historic registration records in England and
Wales will benefit from the removal of the burden of having
to purchase certificates they may not want in order to see
the information contained in the records. There will also be
savings for the Registrar General and registration authorities
from not having to produce certificates or indexes.
6.6.26 The computerisation of historic records will give
users more choice in where and when they consult the
records. They will no longer need to travel to places that
hold copies of indexes or to physically order certificates,
saving them time and effort. The computerisation could be
taken forward by the not-for-profit sector or other interested
party. There will therefore be no cost to the public purse.
The cost to the public of accessing the database is likely to
be free or at minimal cost, substantially cheaper than the
current cost of purchasing certificates.
We would welcome views on whether the proposed system for
accessing historic records satisfies the regulatory reform tests and
safeguards.
Questions
In respect of historic records:
111. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protection for
those affected?
112. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing
to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might
reasonably expect to continue?
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.
114. Do you have any views on the costs and savings
identified?
115. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from
the proposals?
Post by Robin HarrittDate: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:08:01 +0100
Subject: 'Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change'
The second round of consultation and first step in the application of
order-making powers on changes to Civil Registration has started. This will
affect anyone who is using the registers to search for relatives in the UK
or who wishes to do so in the future.
MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR SAY.
See
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=10544
Where you can download consultation documents in PDF format.
The intro to the site says;
' The consultation document 'Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change'
sets out the legal changes necessary to modernise the civil registration
service in England and Wales.
In January 2002 the Government published its White Paper 'Civil
Registration: Vital Change' that sets out proposals for the fundamental
reform of civil registration in England and Wales. At the same time the
Government announced its intention that the necessary legal changes would be
brought about using the order-making powers of the Regulatory Reform Act
2001. The Consultation Document represents the first step in the application
of these order-making powers.
The proposed changes will make it easier for citizens to deal with
Government at key points in their, and their families', lives and form part
of the Gov..'
--
Robin
http://harritt.net