RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: DavidG02 on Sunday 24 May 15 13:27 BST (UK)
-
How soon?
http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/news/digital-bmd-certificates-discussed-house-lords (http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/news/digital-bmd-certificates-discussed-house-lords)
Read an article on the possibility of the GRO( General Registry Office) making records available for digital downloads in the same way ScotlandsPeople does. But when?
Living in Australia I would prefer to be able to access these records online...as would others in Australia. While I did send away for a copy of a marriage certificate and was happy with the result, the 5 week delay left me hesitant to try again.
I think I can speak on behalf of many Aussies and I assume New Zealanders and Canadians and Americans , that the uptake in business for the GRO would far outweigh any costs in setting this up
I should congratulate Baroness Scott for driving this as well as those un-named , and also Guy Etchells for his work.
Guy, what is your opinion on how long this will take?
-
Hi
I wouldn't hold my breath. My understanding is that the law change allows for certificates to be issued other than as a certified copy but it doesn't mean that there will be a significant change, at least not in the near future. To set up a system similar to Scotland would cost millions of pounds.
Andy
-
It wouldn't surprise me that any service is more likely to be like the recently launched Probate Service scan on demand, so you would still have to wait for them to be made available rather than something like Scotlands People which, as Andy says, would cost a small fortune to set up. I doubt somehow there will be much movement on this for a while. :-\
-
The link did say ' early to mid 2015' - and yes I am aware of pollyspeak. :D
But thank you for your responses. I prefer to take the positive ;D
-
The link did say ' early to mid 2015' - and yes I am aware of pollyspeak. :D
The early to mid 2015 you refer to relates, as indicated in the article, to the reform becoming law. Nowhere does it say that was when the scheme would be setup. It has become law but as has been mentioned on RC and other sites previously, when such a scheme would be setup is still up in the air.
But thank you for your responses. I prefer to take the positive ;D
Its one thing being positive, its something else I'm afraid being realistic.
I hope the pessimistic view is disproven but I somehow doubt that it will be, especially given the level of budget cuts allegedly still being contemplated by the new govenment. There would probably be a bit of an uproar if a considerable amount of money was spent setting up such a scheme while other departments had their budgets cut more drastically, particularly since it would benefit many outside of this country as much as those who pay their taxes to fund such a scheme. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure such a scheme would bring in far more money in the long run than it would cost to set up, but it would cost a lot in the short term and I don't think there is either the budget or the appetite within government to spend it. I think a more likely scenario will be a scan on demand system as I mentioned previously. But who knows for certain.
-
With regards the earlier Dove (Digitisation of Vital Events) project the following facts have been established by a Freedom of Information request back in September 2012
The FOI reference (for those who wish to view the entire reply) FOICR 23788/12
Note this is a very much shortened extract.
The following records have already been digitised from microfilm.
Birth records 1837 to 1934
Death records 1837 to 1957
All information from the images was captured except the following
Births
Name of informant (if not mother or father);
Informant’s usual address;
Name of registrar;
Marginal notes.
Deaths
Cause of death;
Name of person who certified the death;
Name of registrar;
Marginal notes.
No index of the digitised records has yet been made.
No direct quotes from internal or external contractors were sought as part of the recent strategic review of the digitisation project but it is estimated it would cost £25-30m to complete the digitisation project.
This includes the digitisation and indexing (i.e. the scanning and transcription) of c.133m civil registration records, and the associated non-digitisation costs relating to image storage, system interfaces, development of the online ordering site etc.
Cost estimates subject to standard Home Office accounting rules.
The benefits from the completion of the digitisation project primarily relate to operational efficiencies to the certificate production process and total £990,000 per year (following project completion).
There are also additional wider public / certificate customer benefits.
Also asked-
“Has the GRO at any time issued guidance to records offices or archives which hold the church copies of marriage registers (or microform copies thereof) regarding public access?”
The answer given was-
“GRO has not issued such guidance routinely. However, in 1988, in response to an enquiry concerning the possible issue of “uncertified” copies of religious marriage entries from bodies holding such registers (other than churches), a letter was issued to one library which held church marriage registers indicating that we assumed that other holders of statutory registers were bound by the same limitation in providing copies as we were, i.e. information could only be given by issuing certified copies. We acknowledged that this had never been put to legal test. We advised at that time (September 1988) that in the light of proposed legislative reform concerning access to historic registration records, the Registrar General would not seek to intervene if, perhaps after consultation with the Diocesan registrar, the library were to decide to issue “uncertified” copies of such marriage entries.
The proposed legislative reform did not take place at that time or subsequently. In at least one further instance we have written to a record office enquiring about the issue of “uncertified” copies of marriage entries confirming that the above advice was given in 1988 pending anticipated legislative change. We added that in issuing an uncertified certificate a County Archivist is not covered by any provisions made under registration law.”
Since receiving that FOI reply I can confirm that the Birth and Deaths certificates have been digitised but the digitisation of marriage certificates is still outstanding.
A number of commercial companies are ready willing and able to complete the digitisation and have the technical experience to host such records online.
As I have explained at other times those companies would stand the upfront costs therefore scheme could be put into operation at no cost to the Government (taxpayer), but the will (which is still lacking) has to be there.
Far from costing money this scheme by the GRO’s own figures would save a modest £990,000 per annum and bring operating efficiencies to the registration service.
Both of which must be commended.
Cheers
Guy
-
Thank you Guy
I guess this could lead to another thread topic..
'' What are you ( general) , as a Family Historian , willing to accept as proof of ancestry? ''
I have seen threads and posts on RC that suggest a sense of snobbery in that those who don't have the ''proper'' certificates are only name gatherers and true Family Researchers acquire every scrap and full certificates available from certified bodies.
Now I don't begrudge people who wish to go the ''full monty'' but for my satisfaction I am happy to, at a minimum, get a transcript ( of a certificate from the Official Registrar ) that confirms John married Louisa at such and such place on a certain date. If parents names are attached then all well and good.
And this is what I see as the Digital Future of Family History. And this is why I would like to see this accelerated.
-
Its one thing being positive, its something else I'm afraid being realistic.
I hope the pessimistic view is disproven but I somehow doubt that it will be, especially given the level of budget cuts allegedly still being contemplated by the new govenment. There would probably be a bit of an uproar if a considerable amount of money was spent setting up such a scheme while other departments had their budgets cut more drastically, particularly since it would benefit many outside of this country as much as those who pay their taxes to fund such a scheme. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure such a scheme would bring in far more money in the long run than it would cost to set up, but it would cost a lot in the short term and I don't think there is either the budget or the appetite within government to spend it. I think a more likely scenario will be a scan on demand system as I mentioned previously. But who knows for certain.
I do fear you are right and I wondered when I read this how much would change. But I am positive that as the Government was returned that it would be a case of 'as you were'
-
I do fear you are right and I wondered when I read this how much would change. But I am positive that as the Government was returned that it would be a case of 'as you were'
Its worth bearing in mind that Baroness Scott is a Liberal Democrat peer and it was only the Conservative Party that was re-elected, their junior partner, the Liberal Democrats, in the previous coalition government was somewhat trounced in the recent election. Therefore it isn't really a case of "as you were".
-
Oh
:(
-
I don't know how relevant this comment is because it is about Australia and not the UK, but it might just prove interesting. For quite some time now two State Governments here (NSW, SA) have given "permission" to outside agencies to provide transcriptions of BDM certificates which fall within specified time frames. These come with the notation that they are not legal documents and can therefore not be used for any legal purpose. In NSW there are 3 (I think) approved agents, and in SA it's the major family history organisation. From my own experience it's been really great because the transcription contains all the information included on the "official" document and that is really what I want to have. The difference is that it's not in certificate form, rather it's a typed representation but you can, if you feel inclined, fit it into a home made certificate format for your own records. I'm not sure of other states here because a lot of my research involves the 2 mentioned, but I would love to see it universally adopted. The cost comes down to about half the cost of a certified or legal copy from the government BDM department.
Because each state here has "dominion" over all its own records I imagine bills have had to be presented and then passed, but this type of proposal never seems to get much publicity and I only discovered the agents' existence by accident.
Let's hope the passing of the bill in the UK makes life easier for the genealogy community sooner rather than later.
-
Let's hope the passing of the bill makes life easier for the genealogy community sooner rather than later.
Its definitely removed one obstacle used by the GRO in relation to providing cheaper non-certified copies and I hope it does speed things up but I suspect, even with, as Guy says, 3rd party companies very interested in the scheme, it isn't going to happen that quickly. Unless its something the government really wants, they always seem to drag their heals rather. :-\ I hope I'm proven wrong though.
-
Not really sure what you mean.
The Deregulation Bill 2013-14 to 2014-15 that contains Lord Stoneham’s amendments was a Government Bill sponsored by Mr Oliver Letwin, Cabinet Office and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Cabinet Office.
The bill was passed in the last session of Parliament and is now law therefore no further Government involvement is required.
It is now up to the civil service to put the Act into operation.
The scheme could be financed through 3rd party partners and as the estimates show would provide savings and efficiencies, both high on the current government’s agenda.
If such a move was blocked there would be questions asked and someone would have to come up with a compelling reason why such savings and efficiency was turned down.
Cheers
Guy
-
Not really sure what you mean.
The Deregulation Bill 2013-14 to 2014-15 that contains Lord Stoneham’s amendments was a Government Bill sponsored by Mr Oliver Letwin, Cabinet Office and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Cabinet Office.
My understanding of the situation was that this amendment was added to the Bill following the situation being raised in the House of Lords by Baroness Scott, therefore while the full piece of legislation may have been a Government Bill, it was obviously not part of the governments original purpose for the legislation. This is in spite of the campaigns over the years to try and get such a scheme created and the previous government's desire for budget cuts and efficiencies. If I'm wrong about this, I'm happy to stand corrected.
With the recent reports that the new government is looking at cost savings in the Civil Service, lets hope pressure is put on the GRO to implement the Act's amendment sooner rather than later. However, its not likely to happen overnight because of the need for such a scheme to go out to tender for 3rd party involvement and then the tender winner needing to scan in the marriage registers and index all of the scans assuming that a "scotland's people" type scheme is on the cards. I wasn't saying it was a matter of if the Act was implemented but when. Hence my comment that a scan on demand system would probably have been quicker to implement, particularly with Births and Deaths already digitised. It would still bring about some form of cost savings. However, whatever is implemented is going to be an improvement on the current situation, its just a matter of when it happens.
-
My understanding of the situation was that this amendment was added to the Bill following the situation being raised in the House of Lords by Baroness Scott, therefore while the full piece of legislation may have been a Government Bill, it was obviously not part of the governments original purpose for the legislation. This is in spite of the campaigns over the years to try and get such a scheme created and the previous government's desire for budget cuts and efficiencies. If I'm wrong about this, I'm happy to stand corrected.
With the recent reports that the new government is looking at cost savings in the Civil Service, lets hope pressure is put on the GRO to implement the Act's amendment sooner rather than later. However, its not likely to happen overnight because of the need for such a scheme to go out to tender for 3rd party involvement and then the tender winner needing to scan in the marriage registers and index all of the scans assuming that a "scotland's people" type scheme is on the cards. I wasn't saying it was a matter of if the Act was implemented but when. Hence my comment that a scan on demand system would probably have been quicker to implement, particularly with Births and Deaths already digitised. It would still bring about some form of cost savings. However, whatever is implemented is going to be an improvement on the current situation, its just a matter of when it happens.
It depends what you mean by "it was obviously not part of the governments original purpose for the legislation".
The purpose of the Government's Deregulation Bill was exactly that in the words of the summary it was-
"A bill to make provision for the reduction of burdens resulting from legislation for businesses or other organisations or for individuals; make provision for the repeal of legislation which no longer has practical use; make provision about the exercise of regulatory functions; and for connected purposes."
The bill covered a wide range from Health and Safety, apprenticeships, taxis, rights of way, right to buy etc. etc.
Both amendments 33A and 33B fit the above description not only to the letter but also to the intent.
It is now virtually impossible for progress not to be made as the burdens have already been examined and shown to be reduced at a cost saving, thereby exemplifying two of the Government's raison d'être (efficiency and savings) in one action.
Yes the civil service will fight the change tooth and nail as they have done for the last 100 years, but because the legislation has been amended to remove doubts to the legality of supplying non certified copies of entries they have now lost their only excuse not to comply with the intent of the originating legislation.
However as I have stated elsewhere, there is no reason to assume that non certified copies of births, marriages, deaths and civil partnerships will be available all at the same time.
In fact the Deregulation Act 2015 (section 99, 2 and 3) specifically alters section 36 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and section 9 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 to require uncertified copies to be immediately available.
This adds further pressure on the civil service to rapidly push the change to allow the rapid provision of uncertified copies of BMDs.
It is even possible that the Births & Deaths could be licenced to any provider in the same way as the census (prior to the 1911 census) were licenced therby bringing in the element of competition.
Then at a later date a contract to digitise and provide uncertified copies of marriages could be put out to tender.
The whole situation is very fluid at the moment but changes are in the air.
Cheers
Guy