Destruction of Records

[Guy Etchells]

A digital version of a record isn't the same as a transcription. These particular digital records comprise images AND transcriptions. Not the same as original paper documents, but invaluable when the paper version is at risk from frequent handling, and the 1939 Register books were in constant use for more than 50 years.

But were they the original 1939 national Register was suppossed to have be closed in 1952, assurances were given in parliament to that effect.
The numbering system was then used for a new NHS register but that was not suppossed to be the original 1939 National Register.

Here for instance is part of an exchange in the Commons-

HC Deb 21 May 1953 vol 515 cc2233-4

"Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

How is it possible for the Minister to say that national registration has been completely abandoned when people are required to keep, remember and make use of their national registration numbers? Is he not, in effect, still attempting to hoax the public into believing that national registration has been abandoned, whereas unless the individual remembers his national registration number he can find himself in all kinds of difficulties?

Mr. Macleod

Oh, no. Any large scheme—for example, the National Health Insurance scheme before the Health Service was introduced—is bound to be based upon a system of numbers. We have used the same system of numbers, but national registration, happily, does not exist any more, and as a consequence a lot of staff and a great deal of money have been saved."

Note Mr. Macleod did not state the register was now being used by the NHS but only "We have used the same system of numbers..."

It now seems that in spite of the assurances the original register may have been unlawfully used, perhaps that is why there was so much secrecy surrounding it.
Whenever groups visited Southport it was shown to them from a distance whereas with other closed records the public were allowed to get close to but not touch or open.

Were Members of the House of Commons decieved, if so why?

It seems the more we learn about the 1939 National Registration the more questions need answering.

Cheers
Guy

P.S. I also want to know why people who paid to receive a transcript of details of a household seem to have been given a transcript of a different register, but perhaps more of that will be revealed on Monday.

[Mean_genie]

Ricoba. It was taken on 29 September 1939. If your parents were still in England and Wales then, you would need to supply death certificates because they died overseas, unless they were born over 100 years ago, in which case their records will be open anyway. 

[ricoba]

Thanks for your reply.
My sister had her first birthday in May 1939 on the ship coming to Australia, so I take it her and my parents won't  be listed.
Thanks for clearing it up for me.
kind regards

[Mean_genie]

Guy

I'm not sure what the issue is here. From the piece that you quote, the minister didn't say that the same books were going to be used, but he didn't say that they weren't going to be used either. My guess is that at the time most people's reaction to the end of NR would have been 'Good, I don't have to keep that wretched card on me any more and produce it to nosy officials on demand, and get fined if I don't'. I doubt than many would have given any thought whatever to the register books, and if they had, I doubt they would have cared. In a climate where rationing was still in force and paper was in short supply, the profligate destruction of upwards of 7,000 books and their replacement with a new set would have been more likely to provoke howls of protest, quite rightly.

Whenever groups visited Southport it was shown to them from a distance whereas with other closed records the public were allowed to get close to but not touch or open.

  This is hardly surprising. Since the books contain highly sensitive health information on the right-hand pages (which remain permanently closed) I wouldn't expect them to be on display at all other than under strictly-controlled conditions.

I expect the background story and the administrative details of the way the change was handled are somewhere in the records of the Ministry of Health, and/or the GRO if anyone cares to look; the civil service often records in minute detail the precise means by which it moves bits of paper from desk to desk, as you can see even from the small selection that have been published on HISTPOP. I doubt there is any great conspiracy to be uncovered, but you never know until you look. I'm sure if you were to ask anyone who used to work on the registers at Southport they would be happy to confirm that the same books were in use from 1939. 

[Guy Etchells]

Guy

I'm not sure what the issue is here. snip 

There are actually a number of issues here.

First. Are the paper volumes of the 1939 National Register going to be archived or destroyed.
The tender document suggests to me they are going to be destroyed.

Second. If the 1939 national Census was in use until 1991 then why were lies told to the members of the House of Commons in 1952 and later.
Perhaps it is time a law was passed making it an offence to lie in either of the Houses of Parliament.

Third. Function Creep. The 1939 National Registration Act required the public to provide details for three specific purposes (national service, national security and food rationing). Instead of staying within that remit the authorities allowed function creep to expand the usage to many other functions (the NHS central Register for one, others involved the opening of Post Office Savings Bank accounts, collecting parcels, checking pension claims and routine police inquiries, for instance when a motorist was speeding.
As Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice stated “It is obvious that the police now, as a matter of routine, demand the production of national registration identity cards whenever they stop or interrogate a motorist for whatever cause. Of course, if they are looking for a stolen car or have reason to believe that a particular motorist is engaged in committing a crime, that is one thing, but to demand a national registration identity card from all and sundry ... , for instance, from a lady who may leave her car outside a shop longer than she should, or some trivial matter of that sort,...is wholly unreasonable.
This Act was passed for security purposes, and not for the purposes for which, apparently, it is now sought to be used. To use Acts of Parliament, passed for particular purposes during war, in times when the war is past, except that technically a state of war exists, tends to turn law-abiding subjects into lawbreakers, which is a most undesirable state of affairs. Further, in this country we have always prided ourselves on the good feeling that exists between the police and the public and such action tends to make the people resentful of the acts of the police and inclines them to obstruct the police instead of to assist them.”
At a time when the Police are requesting further right to access our online activities Function Creep is something we should all be aware of.
I could go on but I am sure you get the picture
Cheers
Guy

[Ceeoh]

Definitely archive the original - never never destroy original documents.

[coombs]

Even original documents suffer wear and tear if they are viewed a lot by genealogists at record offices. Imagine the strain of old workhouse records if they constantly get transported from the archive room to the reading room table, and then get flicked through by us, even if we wear gloves. Scanning them is a good way but always keep the original.

[ThrelfallYorky]

The thing that concerns me is that "Technology" changes! Look at the Modern "Domesday" project - quite recent, and yet within a few years issues re: reading it. Remember Betamax? Original records should ALWAYS be preserved - yes, scan 'em, copy 'em, but never, never ever destroy!!

[suey]

The thing that concerns me is that "Technology" changes! Look at the Modern "Domesday" project - quite recent, and yet within a few years issues re: reading it. Remember Betamax? Original records should ALWAYS be preserved - yes, scan 'em, copy 'em, but never, never ever destroy!!

 
Well said!

Problem is we are the 'captive audience' so to speak.  I don't think you'd find anyone on here who would advocate the destruction of any paper records whatever they are.
Ask the man in the street and he probably couldn't care less, as long as it was saving him money