This may interest posters.
Petition for cheaper research copies of English & Welsh Documents
https://submissions.epetitions.direct.g ... tions/1792
Petition for cheaper documents
Moderators: Global Moderators, Pandabean
-
momat
- Posts: 704
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:50 am
- Location: New Zealand
Petition for cheaper documents
Maureen
-
trish58
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:41 am
- Location: Australia
Re: Petition for cheaper documents
Signed it, though doubt it will make any difference.
Trish
Trish
searching. Rae, Kennedy, Agnew, McConnell, Singleton, Appleton, Feeney, Fury, & many more
-
garibaldired
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:42 pm
- Location: Dorset, UK
Re: Petition for cheaper documents
I've signed it too - and I'm not as pessimistic as Trish!
Meg
Meg
-
Montrose Budie
- Posts: 713
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:37 pm
Re: Petition for cheaper documents
Yes, it would be great to get cheaper research copies of English & Welsh documents, this in the obvious context that the only way at the moment is to buy a copy of the original is at the full price for an 'official' copy of the record.
In Scotland this situation was solved by digitising all the register entries and the associated indexes, with all the latter on line apart from the current year and maybe the previous year, with many of the former images also on line, with various closures dates. Images of the 'closed' records are viewable at New Register House in Edinburgh, and now an increasing number of locations around Scotland for a modest daily fee (unlimited number of records viewable in a day). I seem to recall that the last couple of years' indexes and even the current year to date index can also be viewed at NRH etc.
As many will be aware there was a project to digitise the English & Welsh BMD records and create linked indexes, but this was a victim of guvmint cutbacks 2 or 3 years back. (With many associated reports that this was in part at least yet another example of a massively FUBAR UK guvmint computer related database project.)
The current reality is that GRO can only issue an official, legal copy. I strongly suspect that primary legislation or at very least a statutory instrument would be required to allow GRO to issue 'unofficial', 'non binding in a legal sense' simple photocopies.
(The original 1854 Scottish and 1836 English&Welsh&Irish Acts of Parliament setting up state sponsored BMD registration, while very similar in general intent and content, contain a number of apparently quite minor but quite incredibly important differences, hence the fact that anyone can walk in off the street into NRH in Edinburgh, plus an ever increasing number of locations across Scotland, pay a very reasonable fee, and view as many original register entries as they like, and can, in the day's access.
The critically important few words relate to the open access that the respective Registrars General are permitted to grant to the records. Yes, there is an element of interpretation involved as regards these few different words, but that has been long since 'solidified', and has long since become accepted practice in Scotland. )
Even a Statutory Instrument has to compete with similar and other sorts of legislation for parliamentary time, never mind the time of the parliamentary clerks who do the necessary drafting of the proposed new legislation. In the experience of GROS the process of preparing, presenting and having accepted a new Statutory Instrument has taken up to 12 months.
If, as might be the case here, a new Act of (Westminster) Parliament is required, then the competition for parliamentary time becomes extreme, over and above planned legislation; the only likely way forward in this scenario being to find an MP who has been successful in the Private Members' Bills ballot, and persuade him or her to adopt this cause. Unlikely, I'd suggest.
Even then I can well imagine GRO and their supervising guvmint department recoiling in complete and utter horror over the prospect of GRO having to supply many, many more, - perhaps 10 times more, or even higher!, - numbers of copies of register entries, even although these are not official, legal copies.
Imagine the resources that would need to be put in place to meet such a new demand !!
Anyone want to guess how likely or unlikely it is in the current financial mess in the UK it is that the required finance for such extra resources required by GRO would be provided?
OK, yes, there is an argument that the eventual GRO income over several years would more than pay for the additional resources initially required by GRO, but I don't see such an argument doing any better in Whitehall at the moment than the proverbial lead balloon !
As regards Scotland we are extremely fortunate that GROS were able to persuade the then Scottish Executive some (10+ ?) years ago to take the gamble of funding the Scottish records BMD and other records digitisation project; and, believe me, please, that, as far as the Scottish Executive were concerned, it was indeed seen as something of a gamble.
Never mind that the GRO/Westminster civil service response is most likely to be that they can't see any cost savings involved in producing such 'research copies'.
I don't want to sound like a 'prophet of doom' but I can only conclude that this particular petition is going nowhere.
Better, I'd suggest, for there to be a petition to re-instate the previous digitisation project. In that context, is anyone aware of any recent minutes of meetings involving GRO, probably including a representative from SoG in London, that can shed some up-to-date light on the status of the digitisation project?, - as far as I'm aware the project has yet to be formally abandoned.
mb
In Scotland this situation was solved by digitising all the register entries and the associated indexes, with all the latter on line apart from the current year and maybe the previous year, with many of the former images also on line, with various closures dates. Images of the 'closed' records are viewable at New Register House in Edinburgh, and now an increasing number of locations around Scotland for a modest daily fee (unlimited number of records viewable in a day). I seem to recall that the last couple of years' indexes and even the current year to date index can also be viewed at NRH etc.
As many will be aware there was a project to digitise the English & Welsh BMD records and create linked indexes, but this was a victim of guvmint cutbacks 2 or 3 years back. (With many associated reports that this was in part at least yet another example of a massively FUBAR UK guvmint computer related database project.)
The current reality is that GRO can only issue an official, legal copy. I strongly suspect that primary legislation or at very least a statutory instrument would be required to allow GRO to issue 'unofficial', 'non binding in a legal sense' simple photocopies.
(The original 1854 Scottish and 1836 English&Welsh&Irish Acts of Parliament setting up state sponsored BMD registration, while very similar in general intent and content, contain a number of apparently quite minor but quite incredibly important differences, hence the fact that anyone can walk in off the street into NRH in Edinburgh, plus an ever increasing number of locations across Scotland, pay a very reasonable fee, and view as many original register entries as they like, and can, in the day's access.
The critically important few words relate to the open access that the respective Registrars General are permitted to grant to the records. Yes, there is an element of interpretation involved as regards these few different words, but that has been long since 'solidified', and has long since become accepted practice in Scotland. )
Even a Statutory Instrument has to compete with similar and other sorts of legislation for parliamentary time, never mind the time of the parliamentary clerks who do the necessary drafting of the proposed new legislation. In the experience of GROS the process of preparing, presenting and having accepted a new Statutory Instrument has taken up to 12 months.
If, as might be the case here, a new Act of (Westminster) Parliament is required, then the competition for parliamentary time becomes extreme, over and above planned legislation; the only likely way forward in this scenario being to find an MP who has been successful in the Private Members' Bills ballot, and persuade him or her to adopt this cause. Unlikely, I'd suggest.
Even then I can well imagine GRO and their supervising guvmint department recoiling in complete and utter horror over the prospect of GRO having to supply many, many more, - perhaps 10 times more, or even higher!, - numbers of copies of register entries, even although these are not official, legal copies.
Imagine the resources that would need to be put in place to meet such a new demand !!
Anyone want to guess how likely or unlikely it is in the current financial mess in the UK it is that the required finance for such extra resources required by GRO would be provided?
OK, yes, there is an argument that the eventual GRO income over several years would more than pay for the additional resources initially required by GRO, but I don't see such an argument doing any better in Whitehall at the moment than the proverbial lead balloon !
As regards Scotland we are extremely fortunate that GROS were able to persuade the then Scottish Executive some (10+ ?) years ago to take the gamble of funding the Scottish records BMD and other records digitisation project; and, believe me, please, that, as far as the Scottish Executive were concerned, it was indeed seen as something of a gamble.
Never mind that the GRO/Westminster civil service response is most likely to be that they can't see any cost savings involved in producing such 'research copies'.
I don't want to sound like a 'prophet of doom' but I can only conclude that this particular petition is going nowhere.
Better, I'd suggest, for there to be a petition to re-instate the previous digitisation project. In that context, is anyone aware of any recent minutes of meetings involving GRO, probably including a representative from SoG in London, that can shed some up-to-date light on the status of the digitisation project?, - as far as I'm aware the project has yet to be formally abandoned.
mb
-
Currie
- Posts: 3924
- Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:20 am
- Location: Australia
Re: Petition for cheaper documents
I think the GRO Digitisation projects were named after species of birds, Dodo, Moa and Emuarius, or something like that.
I remember now, it was Dove, Magpie, and Eagle.
After the tragic death of Dove they thought up a new scheme called the Digitisation and Indexing project (D&I). The history of it all is set out in this May 2010 House of Commons Library document. http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03709.pdf
However “The D&I project is currently in a pause status as IPS awaits the outcome of the government's Comprehensive Spending Review” and “Further updates will be posted on this page, as soon as information is available.” http://www.identitycommissioner.org/cps ... l/1090.htm
It’s all too silly for words.
Alan
I remember now, it was Dove, Magpie, and Eagle.
After the tragic death of Dove they thought up a new scheme called the Digitisation and Indexing project (D&I). The history of it all is set out in this May 2010 House of Commons Library document. http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03709.pdf
However “The D&I project is currently in a pause status as IPS awaits the outcome of the government's Comprehensive Spending Review” and “Further updates will be posted on this page, as soon as information is available.” http://www.identitycommissioner.org/cps ... l/1090.htm
It’s all too silly for words.
Alan
-
Montrose Budie
- Posts: 713
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:37 pm
Re: Petition for cheaper documents
A news in today's paper.
Two petitions have exceeded the magic limit of 100,000 signatures.
The relevant parliamentary committee that should have then arranged for a debate hasn't done so, as there are other more important matters to be handled by parliament !
Cynical ? Me ? Never !
mb
Two petitions have exceeded the magic limit of 100,000 signatures.
The relevant parliamentary committee that should have then arranged for a debate hasn't done so, as there are other more important matters to be handled by parliament !
Cynical ? Me ? Never !
mb