Current Campaigns
- General Register Office
Sir, - Regular readers of your Letters page will know that Dublin's General
Register Office (GRO) has often been the subject of disgruntled letters.
Here is the latest chapter in this long saga.
Currently, proposed legislation before the Dáil (attached to the
Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2002) proposes to amend
the information that in future will be recorded in death registrations.
The Council of Irish Genealogical Organisations welcomes the Bill's proposal
to record, in future, a deceased person's date of birth (rather than age).
However, we are greatly concerned that the Minister for Social, Community
and Family Affairs, Mr Dermot Ahern, will not accept other, perfectly
sensible proposals. These are that in 21st-century Ireland it is also
necessary to record a deceased person's place (town or townland, and county
or country) of birth and, where the deceased is a married, widowed or
divorced woman, the maiden surname.
In last week's Dáil debate during the Bill's report stage, the
Minister argued that it would not be necessary to record these details
because in future all records of birth, death and marriage will be linked
in a Social Welfare-operated database of "through-life-records" using
the new "personal public services number" which every citizen in Ireland
will soon possess. Unfortunately, the Minister's argument falls short
of the point in that this database (quite rightly) will not be open to
the general public; in addition, citizens have a habit of contracting
business requiring the production of a certificate of birth, death or
marriage with organisations other than Irish Government Departments.
In these instances, it is vital that civil records of death record enough
facts about the deceased to emphatically establish the deceased's identity.
It is worth noting that details relating to date and place of birth and
the maiden surname of a married woman have been recorded in death registrations
in Northern Ireland since 1973.
In the Dáil last Wednesday, proposals to record the place of birth
and maiden name were tabled by Fine Gael's spokesman for Social, Community
and Family Affairs, Mr Brian Hayes TD, and these were backed by Labour's
spokesman, Thomas Broughan TD. Unfortunately, the subject did not win
the Minister's support and the amendments were defeated. However, the
Minister hinted that he might be persuaded to look again at this issue
before the Bill goes to the Seanad. We implore the Minister to do just
that and to seize this opportunity to bring Ireland into line with every
other forward-thinking country in the European Union. - Yours, etc.,
STEVEN C. FFEARY-SMYRL,
Council of Irish Genealogical Organisations,
Templemore Avenue, Dublin 6.
Sir, - The registration of births, deaths and marriages is important in
many ways. In buying or selling property people often have to obtain certificates
for legal purposes. Civil records are also used in investigating hereditary
diseases, in establishing citizenship, inheritance from distant relatives,
and in genealogical research.
Of the three Irish civil records, the death certificate is least informative,
giving minimal details (name of deceased, date, place and cause of death,
marital status, age and occupation). In 1969 the system in England and
Wales was revised, and since 1973, when legislation modernised registration
requirements in Northern Ireland, the Republic has been operating the
most out-of-date death registration in the English-speaking world. Those
regularly using civil records for medical, inheritance, actuarial and
genealogical research have long been waiting for the opportunity to contribute
to the modernisation of the system. Sadly, it appears that the Government
places no value on their experience and expertise.
Amendments to the registration system are currently being sped through
the Oireachtas as attachments to the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Bill 2002. These include welcome changes to birth records, but recommendations
on modernising death registration have been ignored.
The additional information to be included in future death records as
the Bill currently stands are date of birth or age (in place of age only),
"occupation of person's spouse" and "occupation of person's parents or
guardians", along with a new Personal Public Service Number (PPSN).
Apparently the deceased's place of birth, parents' names and spouse's
name are of no interest to anyone. Even the maiden surname of a married,
widowed or divorced woman will not be included. So how does this improve
the present situation? Unfortunately, it does not, and with increased
mobility and migration it will be a nightmare in years to come for researchers
to match a death certificate to the deceased's birth or marriage record
without knowing where he/she was born, his/her parents' names, his/her
spouse's name or her surname at birth. Theoretically, the PPSN will link
one's birth, marriage and death records. But this does not address the
public interest, as the PPSN will not be in the public domain.
The modernisation of civil registration is far too important an issue
to be merely rubber-stamped as a tack-on to a money Bill. This Bill is
determining the system of recording information for future generations.
Its implications have not been thought through, and adequate consultation
with those who understand those implications has not taken place. This
is a good opportunity squandered. - Yours, etc.,
PAUL GORRY,
Baltinglass,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, - I refer to Steven ffeary-Smyrl's letter (The Irish Times, March 26th
) about the civil registration aspects of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Bill.
As an amateur genealogist I was amused by one bizarre effect of the Bill's
enactment by the Oireachtas. As one of the Republic's Protestants, I have
been left with the legislative right to make searches in the State's civil
registers of non-Catholic marriages (dating back to 1845) held by local
registrars of marriage.
Curiously, the new Social Welfare Act strips my Catholic fellow citizens
of the right to search the civil registers of Catholic marriages (which
date back to 1864) and which are held by local superintendent registrars
of births, deaths and RC marriages.
In view of Mr Trimble's recent remarks, has the Government now proved
that it does indeed cater for the State's minorities or, more likely,
is this just a perfect example of what happens when bills are rammed through
the Oireachtas in a matter of hours? - Yours, etc.,
ROY H. STANLEY,
Beechwood Park,
Dublin 6.
Sir, - Paul Gorry (March 29th) quite rightly points out that the two Government
Departments concerned (Health and Children, and Social, Community and Family
Affairs) appear to place no value on the experience and expertise of those
who made submissions during last May's month-long period of consultation
about modernising Ireland's outdated civil registration system.
I am a member of at least three organisations involved in genealogy and
historical research which made submissions, but which (in almost a year)
have never had even the courtesy of an acknowledgement, never mind some
sort of feedback. When I then discovered that amendments to current legislation
had been quietly tacked on to the end of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Bill - which, as another issue entirely, was pushed through
the Seanad last week in a matter of hours - I was left with the disturbing
realisation that last May's consultation had been nothing more than an
utter sham. - Yours etc.,
DES K. CLARKE,
St Brigid's Grove,
Killester, Dublin 5.
Our Right To Trace Our Family Trees
It is already very hard to find our roots and I wonder at the purpose of
making it even more difficult (Tracing roots made harder by act; The Irish
Examiner, March 28). As a Sullivan descended from John and Mary Sullivan
of Bearhaven I am sure you can imagine the difficulties I already face.
Why would the Irish government want to keep secret ancestors from families
who do not want their memories to be lost?
Tourism to Ireland to visit the homeland of one's ancestors will be less
motivating to a person who cannot trace their roots to even a particular
area of the country. This is certainly true for myself who has only recently
found the area of Ireland from which my great-grandmother was raised.
Here in the United States records of people who have not passed on are
very difficult to acquire in most cases. Our census records are sealed
for 72 years at which time most of the people counted were no longer among
the living. While at times this is frustrating I can understand the reasoning
behind such a rule. But to make these records no longer available at all
or to forever seal the birth, death and marriage records would be a travesty.
I feel that the knowledge of one's ancestors and their history should
be the birthright of us all, not just the aristocracy or famous personages.
Please support not only the continuation of the current level of access
but the restoration of the indices and broader access to our families
in Ireland.
Cindy Sullivan,
Lake Stevens,
Past is Prologue
The Irish government is considering limiting access by the public to records
concerning the births, marriages and deaths of ancestors (Irish Examiner,
March 28). This is shocking, particularly in light of the strong economic
growth and leadership that we have learnt about in Canadian media reports.
As Canadians of Irish descent, we have always been proud of our heritage.
It has been thrilling to search available historical resources and find
the names of great-great-grandparents, cousins, uncles and aunts. What
has amazed us also is the dedicated work of genealogists. All of this
would be hampered without free access to archival material.
We hope that many Irish people will resist and renounce such proposals.
The strength of our future is built on our knowledge of our links with
the past.
Wayne and Colleen Robinson,
62 Parnell Crescent,
Whitby, Ontario,
Canada L1V 3B5.
From soc.genealogy.ireland
, 22 April 2002
GRO RESTRICTIONS
Dear Readers,
With reference to the General Register Office,
Dublin, the only restrictions currently prevailing there touching on access
to information relate to the ludicrous rule restricting researches to
a maximum of three photocopy register entries per day.
However, the situation in relation to the
records held by local (county based) registration offices is now far from
clear. The first major piece of civil registration legislation to come
after that of 1863 was the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1880. One
of the important changes that the 1880 Act brought about was the provision
of direct public access to original registers held by local registration
offices.
Section 25 (third paragraph) of the Act
states: "...every person shall be entitled at all reasonable times to
search the said indexes, and also the register books,...". The new Act
(Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act) substitutes the wording
of 1880 with the following: "...and on payment of the prescribed fees,
a person shall be entitled: (a) to search: (i) the indexes to the register
books, and (ii) any other indexes to the registers maintained by an tArd-Chlaraitheoir
[Registrar General]...".
It appears that the reason for denying direct
access to the original registers relates to the fact that in future registrations
an individual's Personal Public Service Number will be recorded (PPSN).
The PPSN will not be generally within the public domain and thus continuing
legislative right of access to the registers would compromise this. Of
course, this begs the question that as the PPSN will not be retrospectively
added to registrations then there should be no need to restrict access
to registers compiled before the implementation of that section of the
Act.
Interestingly, in the Dail [lower house
of parliament] debate the Minister for Social, Community & Family
Affairs, Mr Dermot Ahern T.D., stated that: "On amendment No. 39, I pointed
out earlier that under the existing regulations with regard to searches
of the register, the computerisation of the national index dating back
to 1845 for marriages and 1864 for births will provide simultaneous access
to a number of parties, including genealogists and will also ensure an
accurate and up to date index to events being available. We need to protect
the primary records after the electronic capture and that is the effect
of my amendments. Amendment No. 39 would not have that effect."
Amendment 39 was one tabled by Mr Brian
Hayes, T.D., Fine Gael spokesman for Social, Community and Family Affairs.
The wording for the amendment was provided by the Council of Irish Genealogical
Organisations (CIGO). This particular amendment was designed to allow
continuing direct public access to the original registers held by local
registration offices. It failed because of the shortsightedness of the
Department's officials who could not grasp the fundamental difference
between original (primary) registers held by local registration offices
and the quarterly (transcript) returns held by the General Register Office.
However, by the time the Bill came to the
Seanad [Senate] CIGO had appraised the Department of the fact that it
would be impossible to deny access to registers held locally but to continue
to allow access to the indexes. This is because locally held indexes are
bound into the register volume to which they relate. Given this conundrum,
the debate in the Seanad was interesting. Ms Mary Hanafin T.D., standing
in for the Minister, Mr. Ahern, when tackled, stated that: "...in the
case of searches of the registers held in each superintendent registrar's
office, the indices are an integral part of the register into which they
are bound. They give access to the register, but because they are primary
records of events, they must be protected."
Ms Hanafin's arguments are of course complete
waffle in order to fudge the fact that removing direct public access to
locally held registers, but allowing examination of the indexes to continue,
was an ill thought out decision, but one which the Minister would not
wish to admit to.
On another issue linked to registration,
in the Seanad Senator Joe O'Toole (Independent) put forward a number of
CIGO 'sponsored' amendments about the subject of the lack of any real
detail being recorded in Irish death certificates. Mr Hayes' amendments
included provision for the recording of a deceased persons date &
place of birth and the maiden name of a married, widowed or divorced woman.
In not accepting Senator O'Toole's amendment Ms Hanafin stated that: "The
primary purpose of the registration of a death is to record accurately
the facts pertaining to a death and provide evidence by means of certified
copies of entries in the register of deaths that a death has occurred."
In response, Senator O'Toole stated: "I am sorry the Minister does not
see fit to accept the amendments. This is an important issue. It is a
bureaucratic argument to state the primary purpose of a death certificate.
It is like saying the purpose of a motor car is to get from A to B. It
is used for many other purposes. There may be a primary purpose, but during
the years it has been used for other purposes. We have been trying to
develop an interest in this area. A line in the Bill would cause very
little extra work or difficulties for anybody else but would make life
a lot easier for people and save them money on going to the family law
courts. It is our responsibility to do anything which saves people money
in the courts and that is the approach we should take."
If the primary purpose of a death certificate
is to record the facts pertaining to a death, then Ms Hanafin should ask
herself why future death registrations will ask for the occupations (but
not the names) of a deceased person's parents !
Finally, it has not been established if
any sections of the Act have been commenced since its passing. Section
17 (3) provides that the Minister can set the dates for the commencement
of any particular sections or all sections by the use of (a) Statutory
Instrument.
I hope this is of help to the newsgroup.
Kind wishes,
Steven Smyrl MAPGI
Back to Top
|