CuimhnigGenealogical Society of Ireland

HOME # GENIE GAZETTE # PUBLICATIONS # MEMBERSHIP # LINKS # CONTACT

CIVIL REGISTRATION IN IRELAND
"Bringing Civil Registration into the 21st Century"

1. INTRODUCTION

The Genealogical Society of Ireland is a national membership organisation devoted to the promotion of genealogy, heraldry and social history in Ireland and amongst the Irish Diaspora. It organises two Open Meetings each month, publishes a Monthly Newsletter "The Genie Gazette" and a Quarterly Journal in addition to over 30 other titles in its "Irish Genealogical Sources" series. The Society has an Archive and is presently, restoring and refurbishing the Martello Tower at Seapoint, Co. Dublin to house this growing research and archival facility.

Founded in 1990 as the Dún Laoghaire Genealogical Society, it rapidly outgrew its local identity and function, therefore, in 1999 the name "Genealogical Society of Ireland" was adopted by the membership and the organisation became incorporated as a company limited by guarantee. This year the Society received a Grant of Arms from the Chief Herald of Ireland by Letters Patent. The organisation enjoys charitable status in Ireland as an "educational organisation".

The Society is affiliated to the UK based international Federation of Family History Societies and the USA based National Genealogical Society. The membership of the Society has insisted that the organisation shall not be a member of CIGO and therefore, shall only be represented in this consultation process by the Officers of the Genealogical Society of Ireland.

Further information on the Genealogical Society of Ireland is available on the Society’s Website
http://welcome.to/GenealogyIreland

2. CONSULTATION PROCESS

The following submission on the "Bringing Civil Registration into the 21st Century" document has been compiled from the various comments, observations and suggestions received by the Genealogical Society of Ireland from its members in Ireland and overseas.

In welcoming this opportunity to participate in the consultative process on the future of the General Register Office and Civil Registration in Ireland, the Society wishes to register its dissatisfaction with the length of time allocated to the general public and organisations to obtain, read and fully understand the document. Thirty days in which to make a submission on such a document as "Bringing Civil Registration into the 21st Century" is wholly inadequate, especially so, for larger membership organisations such as this Society which must provide an opportunity for its membership to fully participate in the formulation of submissions.

Furthermore, it is inappropriate for public consultation documents published on a Departmental Website not to include a "printer friendly" mode of downloading the document without requiring multicoloured graphics, large header/blank spaces and numbering some sixty-five pages. Indeed, consideration to this point should have facilitated the production of the consultation document in a user-friendly format on the Internet in both official languages.

Inasmuch as genealogists, after the general public, are by far the single largest user group of the services of the General Register Office, special attention should have been afforded to the requirements of this sector. Merely mentioning the existence of this body of users in the document is wholly insufficient and contrary to the principles of balanced and informed research techniques.

In failing to recognise this important factor in the consultation process, it is clearly a departure from the methodology employed by all other consultation procedures where there is a single large body of clients, customers or service users involved. If this serious oversight were replicated in the commercial or private sector the consequences for the business and the individuals concerned would be obvious.

Finally, many worthy suggestions and proposals were received by the Registrar General over the years including this Society’s "Regional and North/South Proposals on the Records of the General Register Office, Dublin". However, it is clear that the document "Bringing Civil Registration into the 21st Century" was compiled following a decision to implement a particular type of service, therefore, this process as an exercise in public consultation is fundamentally flawed.

3. A MODERN CIVIL REGISTRATION SERVICE

    1. The Genealogical Society of Ireland fully accepts and supports the introduction of a modern Civil Registration Service for Ireland whereby, the procedures for registration, certification and retrieval of information on Births, Marriages and Deaths is to be streamlined by computerisation. However, inasmuch as, this document seeks to provide for the implementation of a more integrated data collation and transfer amongst Government Departments, it is hardly appropriate that this broader objective should rest solely with this "modernisation" of the General Register Office. A more comprehensive debate involving a multifaceted consultation process, with draft legislation, would be required for the introduction of an all embracing centrally computerised and fully integrated information system covering each citizen from the cradle to the grave. This current consultation process is woefully inadequate to cover all the very important civil libertarian aspects of such an objective.

    2. According to the document, the proposed modernisation involves two phases (1) legislative, management, operational, inter-departmental and state agency accessibility etc. and (2) external accessibility and service for "customers" of the new Civil Registration Service. Evidently this new Civil Registration Service will not be capable of providing anything other than an in-house service for many years following the enactment of legislation and the establishment of the new identity for the GRO. This level of progress since November 1992 makes the flagging of this "modernisation" as benefiting all users, including the public, just as bogus as the original claims regarding the "Roscommon Experiment" where value for money for the taxpayer has yet to be examined.

    3. The progression from a paper based system of civil registration to a wholly computerised operation would be welcomed by most citizens if, in fact, this new system would guarantee a speedier and much improved service for dealing with applications for passports, allowances, pensions and other entitlements. The mechanisms by which this laudable objective might be achieved would be of very little interest to the general public and genealogists. However, should this be achieved by the integration of the GRO service with requirements of other departments at the expense of the present accessibility to the records of the GRO as "public records" this would be a retrograde step wholly unacceptable to genealogists.

    4. The document states that the process of modernisation would involve the examination of legislation enacted since 1844 to 1996 including case law. The Society was the first genealogical organisation in Ireland, back in 1992, to publicly insist that, in order to achieve a modern civil registration service for Ireland, new legislation would be required. Indeed, currently there is no legislative basis for the "Roscommon Experiment" being styled the GRO, Roscommon. The suggestion that the required examination of legislation had not been in progress since November 1992 is nothing short of a scandal. Many Ministers for Health had assured Dáil Éireann over the years, in answers to Parliamentary Questions, that legislation was being examined with the view of bringing forward draft legislation to cover the computerisation of the records and the move to Roscommon. The Society firmly believes that draft legislation, after a period of nearly ten years, should have been brought forward at this stage to enhance and inform the consultation process.

    5. The proposed linking of life events from birth to death within a civil registration system has been in operation in other jurisdictions for many decades without, initially, the aid of computerisation. This proposal to create a single life record through the Irish civil registration system is very much overdue and, indeed, it was not dependent on computerisation as suggested by this document. The enactment of the required legislation in the last century by the Oireachtas could have provided for a more detailed and informative recording and certification of such events – linking as required. It is not necessary for the achievement of such linkage for the records of life events to cease to be "public records" as they are presently, and to become "personal records of individuals held by a public body" as envisaged by this consultation document.

    6. The objective of the consultation document "Bringing Civil Registration into the 21st Century" would appear to be self evident, however, this document envisages much more than the computerisation of the services of the GRO. Indeed, it is clear that this computerisation project is destined to become the vehicle by which a new "National Civil Database" would be created to cover all citizens, residents and people working in Ireland. This database would have an interdepartmental application from life events to allowances, social insurance, taxation and health services, therefore, going much further than the "modernisation" of the civil registration service. Once again, it appears that the document and the consultation process is fundamentally flawed, if not, grossly inadequate, inasmuch as, such a computerised system would have to permit persons to enter the "Civil Registration System" by means other than birth, marriage, divorce or death. Given the clearly intended wider application of the exercise, it is possible that the legislative programme envisaged by the document must and needs be much more extensive than that required solely for the modernisation of the Civil Registration Service. The possible recognition of lawful interpersonal relationships by say, the Inspector of Taxes, may not be catered for by a Civil Registration Service that does not recognise such unions. It is possible that this wider application would require a separate legislative framework to cater for Ireland’s membership of the European Union and the free movement of persons within its member states to work, reside or otherwise and to be documented here in Ireland by means of this computerised system.

    7. Given the wider application of this computerisation project to include information on individuals other than that currently required by the General Register Office, the over emphasis in the document on security of information and the avoidance of the fraudulent use of such is understood. Indeed, the document places questions before the reader in a manner, by which, to achieve a particular outcome rather than to merely invite opinion on the modernisation of the present services of the General Register Office. However, this process of consultation is grossly flawed as the reader is not provided with any alternative option, including the status quo, on which to make his/her judgement. In other spheres of life this practice would be considered unfair and possibly, unlawful.

    8. The document, whilst considering the registration process in depth, including penalties for non-registration, no mention nor provision is made for the registration of events in a bilingual (Irish & English) manner or in the Irish language only. This is important in cases where a parent is already registered in the other language and where an applicant, at the time of marriage, sought to use the Irish version of his/her name in order that the family may adopt and use the Irish version of the surname. Given that the Government plans to bring forward an Irish Language Bill this is a serious oversight.

    9. It is surprising that given that Ireland is rapidly becoming a multiracial, multiethnic and multicultural society that no special mention was made in the document of this fact. Since the immigrants or the "New Irish" make up considerable numbers in the minority religions in Ireland and originate mostly from outside Europe, consideration must be afforded to the provision of facilities to register traditional forms of names in accordance with religious or social convention of the various groups. A given name at birth may alter considerably at adulthood. This provision may also provide for the registration of Hebrew names, in addition to the adopted family name, by members of the Jewish Faith in Ireland. The use of the Personal Public Services Number throughout should easily provide for this cultural equity in the Civil Registration Service.

    10. According to the document, not all of the technology required for this "modernisation" project is in place, or likely to be in place for several years to come. Not all aspects of the legislative requirements to introduce the system envisaged by this document have been explored, including certain "substantive issues relating to marriage" and the identification of any shortcomings in present legislation. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that this process should have confined itself to the computerisation of the services of the General Register Office as announced in November 1992, on which, millions of pounds of taxpayers money has been expended and continues to be. Where is the value for money in this process?

4. PUBLIC ACCESS TO REGISTRATION RECORDS

    1. The section dealing with the issue of public accessibility to the records of the General Register Office is the one of most importance to genealogists, social historians and academics/researchers from many fields. However, the document clearly intended to fragment and distort the debate on public accessibility by addressing the whole issue as one of security. The correlation in this document between the public access to the records of the General Register Office and the fraudulent use of certificates is unsound and frankly absurd. Indeed, this issue is presented in a manner that suggests the only preventative measure against such fraudulent use of certificates is opting for tighter controlled accessibility to the records. This is a fundamental shift of responsibility away from the state provider of services, requiring certification by the applicant, having to establish the right of the applicant to such services or indeed, the bona fides of the application.

    2. The document states that circa 104,000 events are registered each year by the GRO and excluding certificates received at the point of registration, approximately 300,000 certificates are issued at a later stage for applicants requiring a range of state services, including pensions, passports and allowances. It also states that circa 1.2 million searches or enquiries are carried out each year across all events, however, it fails to breakdown this figure further to indicate how many of this 1.2 million were family history enquiries requiring either searches of the indices or photocopies of entries. This serious omission clearly demonstrates a total misunderstanding of the importance and requirements of the largest single user-group, genealogists. According to these figures the number of requests for family history related searches could be as high as 800,000 and therefore, obviously requiring but failing to receive special consideration by the compilers of this document.

    3. The issues of service, research space, costs and public accessibility at the General Register Office have been central to the many hundreds of submissions, letters and complaints received by the Registrar General and the various Ministers for Health since the November 1992 announcement. After almost ten years of vigorous campaigns, Parliamentary Questions, letters to the newspapers etc. this document makes for pitifully disappointing reading. The provision of services to genealogists and other researchers was to be an integral part of the computerisation programme offering a wider and much improved quality of public accessibility to the records of the GRO – or so went the "Roscommon Mantra" delivered by successive Ministers for Health. It is clear from this document that services for genealogists are to be subsumed into a much less accessible interdepartmental computerised National Civil Database and to be curtailed accordingly in the interest of security and privacy.

    4. Whilst, recognising the value of the paper based records to genealogy, this document makes no reference to the provision of access to such records (on microfilm) in any of the repositories e.g. National Library, National Archives or Regional Public Libraries and Archives. This serious omission by the compilers of this document is evidence that they did not consult the submissions and proposals on the GRO held by the Registrar General, including this Society’s "Regional & North/South Proposal on the Records of the General Register Office, Dublin" which was published in January 2000. If the Society’s proposals were implemented the pressure on the existing premises at Lombard Street East would be eliminated at a fraction of the cost of this consultation process. (A copy of these proposals is available on the Website above)

    5. The introduction in the document of new categories of Civil Registration Service documents i.e. "historic" and "current" is a serious departure from the present system. Furthermore, the document seeks to pressure the reader into accepting this as a measure, to avoid the fraudulent use of certificates, by suggesting 50, 75 or 100 year definition of "historic" records. Without offering the status quo as an option this methodology is misleading and wholly inappropriate in a public consultation process. Should such a distinction between "current" and "historic" records be required for operational purposes then the standard 30 years under the National Archives Act, 1986 should serve as the only viable and fair guideline.

    6. The constant theme of introducing "safeguards" and "restricting access" is appropriate to the development of a National Civil Database, however, it was not part of the modernisation of the General Register Office as promised many times by various Ministers of Health since November 1992. Since most genealogists are satisfied with a photocopy of an entry, restricting access to this photocopy service would be an excessive and meaningless security measure, as photocopies cannot be used for legal purposes. Indeed, with the nature, spread and construction of Irish surnames any restriction to photocopies of entries would, in the absence of free and open access to the microfilm copies of the registers, effectively close down Irish genealogical research at the General Register Office.

    7. The introduction of different levels of access is a disturbing and possibly unworkable measure. The introduction of an authentication system for users is a worrying development as it would totally hamper genealogical research, prevent the research of collateral lines and prevent research into extended families related by marriage to each other but not to the researcher. This "restriction" is nonsense in terms of genealogical research. Should "authentication" be required to obtain certain levels of access, possibly, for those engaged in commercial genealogical research, how would such a proposal to be administered since not all those engaged in genealogical research for a fee do so as a profession or livelihood. Such restricted access for genealogists in Ireland engaged in One-Name Studies would effectively close down such studies as proving a personal relationship with each person of a particular surname to obtain authenticated access to the system would be impossible.

    8. The opportunity afforded by the introduction of modern technology is much hailed by the document, however, on closer reading this may, for genealogists and the general public, mean little but an administrative aspiration without a commitment by Government to provide an Internet accessible database for genealogists. The Scots Origins example is mentioned, however, without further qualification or commitment. The Government’s promise of greater accessibility for genealogists to the records of the General Register Office, through this computerisation, is clearly not one of high priority and may never materialise. Indeed, it is clear that genealogists would be required to establish a legitimate need to consult these records, according to the document, in order to protect an individual’s right to privacy and to safeguard against fraud. This is an unacceptable and fundamental change in the position and status of the records of the General Register Office in Ireland.

    9. The proposal that certain information on the registers would be closed, for example, the cause of death, may well be as unworkable as it is undesirable. This information would be, according to the document, only available to the immediate family or next of kin of the deceased if implemented. This measure may not withstand a challenge in our courts, may fall foul of international judicial scrutiny and may be an infringement of the human rights of persons in lawful interpersonal relationships not recognised by the Civil Registration Service nor covered by its provisions for registration.

    10. The inclusion amongst the benefits of this computerisation of the "development of a platform for commercial services e.g. genealogical research" is another serious departure from the present accessibility to these records as "public records". This would, in effect, permit these public records to become a product to be exploited by a state, semi-state or private company for a profit. The Society is totally opposed to the commercialisation of public records and since this was never part of the decentralisation and computerisation programme until the publication of this document, the Minister for Health & Children must make a statement on the matter.

    11. The document, though, mentioning a redress procedure covering registration and certification, no mention is made of a Users’ Consultation Procedure for genealogists, genealogical organisations and the general public. This is at variance with other repositories in the Capital such as the National Library and National Archives, however, it is indicative of the low priority afforded to genealogists throughout this document.

    12. Public accessibility to the records of the General Register Office is not underpinned by this document and a service via the Internet is certainly not guaranteed even in the long-term. This document is concerned with the introduction of a National Civil Database to administer the allocation of Personal Public Service Numbers to the general public. The cause of genealogists has not been served by this document and a near 10 year wait has come to nothing. The computerisation of the GRO records has been high-jacked by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs in an endeavour to provide a one-stop information service for government.

5. CONCLUSION

Inasmuch as, the Genealogical Society of Ireland is committed to the "Principle of Public Ownership and Right of Access" to our genealogical heritage, it is duty bound to reject the provisions of this document in so far as they pertain to the provision of services to genealogists and other researchers.

The Society urges all genealogists and genealogical organisations to reject this document as it seeks to subsume one of our most important genealogical resources into a very restricted computerised interdepartmental information service. There is no timetable for the introduction of public accessibility and no guarantee of such in anything remotely resembling the present level of access for the general public.

Clearly the argument for the introduction of a "Genealogy & Heraldry Bill" has been greatly strengthened by the publication of this document "Bringing Civil Registration into the 21st Century" and by the failure of the "Roscommon Experiment" to deliver a comprehensive computerised and publicly accessible service after nearly ten years. The lessons of the GRO debacle will not be easily forgotten and indeed, all expenditure to date on this decentralisation and computerisation process must be examined by the Public Accounts Committee as value for money for the Irish (and European) taxpayer is far from certain.

In conclusion, once again, the Society recommends the implementation of its "Regional & North/South Proposal on the Records of the General Register Office, Dublin" – the full text of appended here.

MICHAEL MERRIGAN
Hon. Secretary
Genealogical Society of Ireland