PAROCHIAL REGISTERS AND RECORDS (Hansard, 9 January 1978)

§ Mr Terry Walker (Second Church Estates Commissioner)

I beg to move, That the Parochial Registers and Records Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament. The purpose of this Measure is to modernise and simplify the law governing care of the Church's registers and records and in so doing to set new and higher standards for that care. Parish registers and records are often the most important single source of information about the history of a particular area. These records are in a technical sense the property and responsibility of the Church, and it is right tonight to pay tribute to the care which the parochial clergy of the Church of England—the ordinary parsons—have taken to look after these records. These registers and records are also part of our national inheritance, and it is not surprising therefore that as long ago as 1812 Parliament should have been in the field with the Parochial Registers Act.

There were provisions relating to parish registers in various other nineteenth century Acts of Parliament and then in 1929 the Church Assembly brought forward the Parochial Registers and Records Measure which in its day represented a substantial step forward.

In the Measure which I present tonight the General Synod is taking a further major step forward. The new Measure will simplify the law by getting rid of the 1812 Act and the 1929 Measure and various other statutory provisions but it re-enacts the key provisions of the older legislation and builds upon them.

At the heart of the system provided for by the Measure is the requirement that each diocese must designate a diocesan records office where the parishes can deposit these records for safe keeping. This provision was originally part of the 1929 Measure, and the position today is that in all but three cases dioceses have appointed their local authority records office as the diocesan records office for the purpose of 1396 the 1929 provisions and, hence, for these provisions as well.

In some cases where a diocese spans more than one county it has arranged for the allocation of the parochial records to the appropriate local authority office and in three cases—at Canterbury, York and Oxford—an independent body of high repute has been designated as the diocesan records office. The three bodies are respectively the Canterbury Cathedral Library, the Borthwick Institute and the Bodleian Library.

In the preparation of this Measure there has been a great deal of consultation with the Church authorities, the local authorities who, I understand, have in so many cases been the custodians of these records, and representatives of those who use the records as the tools of their historical research.

I do not intend tonight to go through the Measure clause by clause, but there are four major points to which I should draw attention. First, the Measure sets new technical standards in the case of registration books and records which remain in the custody of the parish. Hon. Members will find in Schedule 2 fascinating details about rust-proof vented steel cupboards, about "maximum and minimum" thermometers and about hygrometers.

Secondly, the new Measure introduces the requirement that there must be a periodical inspection of the registers and records which remain in parochial custody. There will be an initial inspection shortly after the Measure takes effect and subsequent inspections at intervals of not more than six years.

Thirdly, the new Measure, for the first time, will make it compulsory to deposit in the diocesan records office completed registration books and other records which are more than 100 years old, unless the diocesan bishop is advised that these can be kept satisfactorily in the parish. In plain language, this means that it will diocesan bishop is advised that these old records to remain in the custody of a parish, because only rarely will a parish be able to satisfy the very high standards of care which are laid down in Schedule 2 of the Measure.

But I must tell the House that these requirements have caused quite a lot of 1397 heart-searching amongst the clergy, particularly in country areas. They are—and rightly—proud of the achievements of their predecessors and themselves in looking after parish records, and they do not easily take to the idea that these records, which are part of local inheritance, should be taken even as far as the local county office. But the prevailing view, which opinion in the General Synod and in the Church generally has come to share, is that the public interest would now best be served by these new requirements.

Fourthly, and finally, I need to refer to a matter which caused anxiety to hon. Members at an earlier stage and to which response is made in the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Clause 20 of the Measure before us allows for the charging of fees in certain circumstances, to be paid by those making searches in register books. When the Measure came to the Ecclesiastical Committee, various individuals and bodies representing scholars and others who needed access to registers expressed concern about this clause. Some of them would have liked to secure that a bona fide student should not be charged a fee where he makes the search himself.

Particular concern was expressed because under Clause 20 there is no mention of controlling the amount of the fees charged by the three "independent" diocesan record offices, and it was this latter point which troubled the Ecclesiastical Committee, as its report shows. The Synod, for its part, felt that this was quite reasonable, given the eminence and responsibility of the three bodies, one of which, the Bodleian, has never charged fees. However, after consultation with hon. Members and with various bodies, following the meeting of the Ecclesiastical Committee action has been taken in the Synod to include, in a Miscellaneous Provisions Measure which will shortly come to Parliament, a compromise position which will amend Clause 20 of the Measure before us to make it clear that the right of local authority records offices to charge fees is governed by the Local Government (Records) Act 1962, as to provide that fees charged by the independent offices will be subject to upper limits to be prescribed by the General Synod.

1398 If the present Measure is approved tonight, it will not in practice take effect until the amending Measure has received parliamentary approval and the Royal Assent. This is a genuine compromise which is accepted—indeed, I think that I can say that it is welcomed—by all concerned. Those hon. Members who have raised the matter with me have expressed satisfaction. They have said that the compromise is acceptable to them.

When I bring General Synod Measures to the House I am usually conscious that they are primarily of concern to the Church, although there may be some wider public interest in them. The Measure that I am now presenting is rather different. I think I can say that it is primarily of concern to the whole community, although it concerns the Church greatly. Indeed, the Church has used its legislative machinery to bring it forward.

The Ecclesiastical Committee was aware of the extent of the wider community's indebtedness to the General Synod for devoting so much of its limited time and resources to the preparation of this Measure. At the same time the General Synod would wish to place on public record its appreciation of the help that it received in the preparation of the Measure from hon. Members, from those in another place, and from representatives of professional and other expert bodies. The Measure that I commend to the House is in the truest sense the fruit of their collaboration.

§ Mr. Stanley Newens (Harlow)

Although the issues involved in the debate on parochial registers are not calculated in the normal course of events to stimulate great controversy, passion and argument, their preservation and access to them are matters of vital interest to all who are concerned with local and family history. In past ages, especially before 1837, the only record kept of births, marriages and deaths was that kept in parochial registers. Therefore, such documents are of inestimable value to everybody.

Today, interest in the study of genealogy and local history is increasing, and every year more and more students seek out their local record office 1399 and indulge in research into various aspects of the history of their localities and families. It is appalling to think that in the past many priceless archives were destroyed through negligence and ignorance of their true value. I could cite many examples when records were burnt by people who thought that they were of no further value or others that have been allowed to decay in damp conditions or merely misplaced. It is much to be welcomed that higher standards should be set for the preservation of these priceless archives.

It is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) should pay tribute to the Church and practically in the same breath recognise that the preservation of these records is important because they are a vital part of our national heritage. I believe that access to them should, as far as is humanly possible, be guaranteed to the public. It is extremely important that they should be made available at reasonable hours and in convenient locations.

My hon. Friend is aware that there is another aspect of the problem of making records available to the public. The problem arises from the need to provide that the fees charged for access are not excessive. As my hon. Friend has indicated, many of the records are available free of charge in local record offices. However, there has been considerable concern that fees could be charged that would become exorbitant over the course of years, especially in the privately controlled repositories. It may seem far from reality to talk now about charges being exorbitant, but I must remind the House that some years ago a Measure was introduced to charge for entry into museums. That might well have produced a state of affairs in which many people who otherwise might have visited museums would not have done so. The same could be true in respect of these records.

I very much welcome the compromise proposal, which is designed to prevent exorbitant fees from being charged in due course. At the same time, I felt that it was important to place on record that this is a matter that will attract ongoing concern, which will not disappear once this Measure has been passed.

1400 A few years ago it was quite cheap for people who wanted to go to Somerset House to the General Record Office to obtain a birth, marriage or death certificate. I believe that, although today one can scrutinise free of charge, the volumes which are kept in St. Catherine's House, Kingsway, the cost of obtaining certificates is exorbitant. It is important to point out that people who research these matters frequently require large numbers of certificates to eliminate all kinds of possibilities from the research that they are undertaking. In these circumstances, even a small increase in the fees charged for access to parochial records could be a serious deterrent to students from carrying out research in which they are interested.

It is important that we should recognise that there is widespread concern among people who are concerned with these matters about the compromise Measure that my hon. Friend has mentioned. Furthermore, those who have control over parochial records should continue to recognise the rights of the public and the desirability that people should have access to what I agree are part of our national heritage.

On such an occasion as this, with not many hon. Members present in the House, this debate may be completely overlooked in the Press. But if in later years charges are raised to exorbitant levels many people will protest. Therefore, I felt it was important to place on record that it is vital that these fees should be kept as low as possible and that, if convenient, these records should be made available free of charge to genuine students.

I welcome the Measure. It is commendable that the Church should be concerned that these records are adequately protected in future so that they may be available for future generations who may wish to have access to them.