MOD ALREADY TRANSFERRING WW2 SERVICE FILES TO UK NATIONAL ARCHIVES 2021

My most serious concern for digitisation of Service Records held in the UK, see previous post here:

MOD ALREADY TRANSFERRING WW2 SERVICE FILES TO UK NATIONAL ARCHIVES 2021

Is that once partial digitisation has occurred that not too many years from now a decision maker unaware of what has and has not been digitised from the hard copy records will decide "Records are digitised, server space is expensive, hard copy (warehouse!) storage space is expensive (a la "Iron Mountain") so we can have the hard copy records destroyed and offset the server storage costs by disposing of said hard copy storage (and the hard copies within!)".

It will need government intervention to prevent the likelihood of this, sooner rather than later.

Kind regards, still spitting bullets, always,

Jim.

 

Extracts from Advisory Council minutes from 2020. The old Keeper told the Advisory Council that

"21 November 2022

3.2. Members asked about the use of FOI requests to gain access to MoD Service Personnel records. Mr James noted that access to the records had been through FOI whilst the records were held by the Ministry of Defence..."

This was then corrected on 5 May 2023:

"Ms Fletcher noted that whilst the records had been held by the Ministry of Defence, they had not treated requests for these records under the FOI regime."

Further extracts:

9 November 2020

5.1 to deal with the large number of FOI requests which would accompany the transfer of the records.

Ms Lucy Fletcher responded that the focus would be on transferring open collections to begin with.

Longer term there were ongoing discussions with the FOI centre to consider service provision, but it would be difficult to predict the level of demand.

The initial transfers would help predict what resources would be needed.

5.2 Members asked when the public would be apprised of this transfer.

Ms Fletcher noted TNA was working to establish a communication plan, with a focus on managing expectations and this could be brought back to Council.

There were however, already references to the project in various public documents.

5.3 Members queried TNA’s progress with digitisation and commercial partnerships for this project.

Ms Fletcher said there had been conversations with potential commercial partners, but it would be necessary to have the initial records to develop this further.


5.4 Mr Ian Henderson, Mr Steven Law and Mr Tony Lewis from MoD joined the meeting to discuss written updates on the transfer of service personnel records.

5.5 Mr Henderson summarised the update.

5.6 Members were reassured that progress had been made although had concerns over the transfer of the service personnel records.

5.7 DECISION: The Council thanked Messrs Henderson, Law and Lewis for joining the meeting.

5.8 POST MEETING NOTE: Following the meeting an amendment to the Service Personnel report, and explanation of this amendment was circulated to all members of the Council.

The amendment was noted by members.

---

1 March 2021

Minutes of the meeting held on 9 November 2020

2.1. Members raised a question on the period of closure for the Service Personnel closure and received clarification, with further information to follow after the meeting.

2.2. Subject to amendments proposed by members, the minutes of the meeting held on 9 November 2020 were approved as a correct record.

ACTION: The Director for Government and Information Rights to supply members with further reasoning on the period of closure for the Service Personnel records.

ACTION: The Senior Governance Coordinator to update the minutes with the suggested amendments and upload the public set of minutes to the website.


---

26 July 2021

3.4. Members asked for further details on the Ministry of Defence (MoD) Service Personnel Records, which was provided.

---

27 September 2021

3.1. The Chief Executive and Keeper introduced his update paper on current issues and ongoing matters. LF also provided an update, on the Malcolm Arnold papers, the AB/ES records, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) service personnel records, and the annual release of records at the end of 2021.

3.3. Members asked about the additional MoD service personnel records which had been discovered and what impact this had on the current process. LF noted that The National Archives had been aware that further records might be discovered. Now that further records had been discovered they were liaising with MoD for how these records should be treated; further investigation was required.

3.4. Members asked about the additional storage space at the Kew site. JJ noted TNA was reorganising the first basement level and would use the space created for an additional ten linear kilometres. This would be effective from late spring 2022. It was safe to do this as The National Archives has an additional basement below this.

3.5. Members asked about the ministerial visit to the Kew site. JJ noted the visit had gone well, Lord Parkinson had been provided with a tour and document display. He was briefed on The National Archives major projects, including the 1921 census, MoD service personnel records and plans for 2022 including the commonwealth and Queen’s jubilee. JJ noted the minister was engaged and interested in The National Archives’ work.

---

25 February 2022

3.4. Members asked about the pilot release of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) service personnel records. Ms Fletcher responded that this would be a physical release. This would only be a small portion of the wider series.

---

9 May 2022

3.4. Members asked about the accession of paper copies of the service personnel records. Ms Fletcher confirmed that The National Archives was procuring a partner to start the work on the project and she would be able to provide a further update at the November meeting.

---

21 November 2022

3.2. Members asked about the use of FOI requests to gain access to MoD Service Personnel records. Mr James noted that access to the records had been through FOI whilst the records were held by the Ministry of Defence, but that The National Archives was progressing with its digitisation project for these records. In spite of this it was necessary for the requests to come via FOI requests given the significant levels of personal information contained in the records.

---

10 February 2023

3.2. Mr Todd provided members with an update on the court judgment on unofficial government communications and its clarification of the meaning of Section Three of the Public Records Act 1958. He highlighted the role of the Keeper in providing guidance on these matters and that initial guidance on retaining public records, wherever they existed, until their value could be determined, had been issued on 20 December 2022. He also highlighted ongoing work on communications guidance with the Cabinet Office.
3.3. Members asked if there was a need to revise legislation in light of the judgment. Mr James noted the Public Records Act was format-neutral and so there was no immediate need to update it.

3.8. Members asked about the digitisation of Ministry of Defence Service Personnel records. Ms Fletcher responded that The National Archives would not be able to consider full digitised imagery within the next four years due to the scale of the ongoing work. Ms Fletcher said she would endeavour to include more information on the collation of this material as part of the next update.
ACTION: Ms Fletcher to include information on the MoD Service Personnel as part of the next update.

---

10 February 2023

8.2. Additional to the summary of the Council’s FOI panels, Ms Browne noted that the MoD Service Personnel records remained popular. This had given rise to a substantial proportion of the FOI requests The National Archives was receiving and details for how to make these requests were listed on the website. Members asked about the type of information present in the records. Ms Browne confirmed this was largely personal information, but there were occasionally other relevant exemptions. The sensitivity of the information contained in the records and living relatives who might be affected depended on the age of the records. Often it was noted that FOI requesters self-declared if they were a family, and in some of these cases they could confirm proof of death.
8.3. Aside from the MoD Service Personnel records, The National Archives continued to receive a high number of cases for FOI request

---

5 May 2023

7.7. Ms Fletcher updated members on the increasing MoD Service Personnel requests. She noted these were increasing month on month and this project represented an unprecedented situation for The National Archives. They continued to work on this area. Members asked if the previous interest in these records at the Ministry of Defence could help The National Archives to predict the increase in interest in these records. Ms Fletcher noted that whilst the records had been held by the Ministry of Defence, they had not treated requests for these records under the FOI regime. She noted there was ongoing work to provide different access routes to the records, including digitisation.
7.8. The Council noted the report.

---

17 July 2023

3.2. Members asked for an update on The National Archives’ FOI enquiries. Mr James said The National Archives was receiving a significant number of FOI requests each month and this would result in The National Archives
responding to over 15,000 requests this year. Even discounting FOI requests relating to MoD service personnel records, The National Archives was the government body which received the most FOI requests. He noted that as The National Archives continued to accession records this demand would only grow. Ms Fletcher added that the action plan which had been implemented would leave The National Archives in a better place to deal with the growing number of requests.
3.3. Members asked if the digitisation of the MoD records would have any impact on the FOI request demand The National Archives was experiencing. Mr James noted it would eventually, but the scale of these records meant any positive outcomes would not be for a number of years.

6.1. The Deputy Chair provided an oral update on recent working group matters and highlighted that a copy of the notes from this meeting would go to a future meeting.
6.2. He highlighted the meetings an update from the Metropolitan Police regarding S31 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). He also noted changes implemented by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) following their recent discussions with the Working Group.

---

7. Ministry of Defence (MoD) Explanatory Memoranda
7.1. The Secretariat introduced the paper requesting the approval of the Council for new explanatory memoranda with the MoD.
7.2. Members agreed in principle to the proposed memoranda but had a number of comments regarding wording, content and formatting which required resolving before the new memoranda could be formally agreed.
ACTION: The Senior Access Manager to liaise with the MoD on the Council’s comments.

---

22 September 2023


3.4. Members asked about an update on The National Archives’ FOI enquiries. Mr James said The National Archives was receiving a significant number of FOI requests each month and this would result in The National Archives responding to over 15,000 requests this year. Even discounting FOI requests relating to MoD service personnel records, The National Archives was the government body which received the most FOI requests. He noted that as The National Archives continued to accession records this demand would only grow. Ms Fletcher added that the action plan which had been implemented would leave The National Archives in a better place to deal with the growing number of requests.

---

6 November 2023

3.3. Members asked about the burdens of processing FOI requests for MoD
Service Personnel records. Mr James confirmed that this was a significant
pressure on The National Archives resources and that in the future a
realistic possibility would be that 10% of staff at The National Archives
would be dedicated to this work.



6. Freedom of Information (FOI) Panel Update
6.1. The Council received a paper providing an overview of the issues and work
undertaken by Panels, which included the most recent statistics. Ms
Fletcher noted this was a new format of the paper following on from
discussions with DCMS regarding the new process for FOI panels. The
Deputy Chair noted the new process seemed to be working well, and it was
hoped the relevant individual in DCMS who has dealt with these cases
would attend the February meeting.
6.2. Members asked how the process was working for The National Archives.
The Head of the FOI Centre noted that there had been a slight delay in
receiving completed panels at the end of the process but these were now
moving more smoothly. She also provided feedback to members on
decisions by the FOI team which had been subject to a review and agreed
to provide these figures for the Council’s annual report each year. Members
praised The National Archives for its work in this area and noted the high
level of engagement that The National Archives gave to this task.

---

16 February 2024

6. FOI Panel Update
6.1. The Head of FOI Centre presented this report and highlighted key metrics to
members.
6.2. Members were informed the FOI Centre concluded 2023 having received over
4,000 requests. The Advisory Council Panels had considered a total of 840
cases, each being assigned the maximum number of twenty cases each. FOI
requests for the recently transferred MoD Service Personnel records, handled
by the MOD Access Service, received over 18,000 requests for those records
by the end of 2023.
6.3. Members queried whether some Departments are being too cautious with their
application of s. 38 of the FOI Act.
6.4. Similarly, Members requested Departments be reminded of the correct
language to use in their justifications such as, for example, using ‘could’ when
‘would’ or ‘would be likely to’ would be more accurate. It was confirmed that
TNA colleagues would be proofreading for this particular issue thoroughly.

---

3 May 2024

3.1.2. It was noted that this was Dr James’ penultimate Advisory Council
meeting. It was expected that TNA’s new CEO and Keeper, Mr Saul
Nassé, would attend the next Council meeting in July.
3.1.3. Members discussed the Cabinet Office’s annual FOI bulletin which
reported TNA had received 21,366 requests out of a total of 70,475
submitted to all monitored bodies. Members discussed the impact this
continued to have on TNA’s ability to meet their requirements under the
FOI Act (FOIA). TNA were looking at options to alleviate pressure on the
team and would discuss proposals with the Advisory Council in due
course.

---

 

Jim

I cant foresee a time when the likes of ancestry or anybody would be able to destroy the original Service records, any more than I can see them digitising the records and giving NOK the Originals to save storing them. there will always be the need for the hard copy’s

Of more concern to me is the incomplete digitising of the files, a practice that needs to be stopped in its tracks


Kind regards spitting 25pdr HE projectiles in the direction of Ancestry always

Tim

 

Theres no guarantee of seeing any records at all for UK WW1 personnel, apart from Medal Index Cards and Rolls, pension info. As you may know, 60% or so of WW1 records were lost to the Luftwaffe in WW2. This from the National Archives site:

“In September 1940, as the result of a fire caused by an incendiary bomb at the War Office Record Store in Arnside Street, London, approximately two thirds of 6.5 million soldiers' documents for the First World War were destroyed. Those records which survived were mostly charred or water damaged and unfit for consultation and became known as the 'burnt documents'.

Commencing in 1996 and with the aid of Lottery funding and volunteers from the Genealogical Society of Utah under an agreement with the Ministry of Defence, the surviving records were the subject of a large microfilming programme designed to capture as much information as possible from these fragile documents and enable them to be permanently preserved.”

I was extremely lucky to find my great grandfather’s record had survived, but of some other relatives, sadly no trace. Here’s an example of one of those from his record, you can see the ‘burnt’ bit (thanks to Ancestry):

 

Both my grandfathers ww1 service records where lost in that fire
I have their medal cards and both served in the same units so may have been mates
What they cant of known at the time was that their offspring would go on to marry and become my parent’s .so there is a whole story lost thanks to a German bomb

 

What are the chances of that. Great story.

 

Just remember Tim, unfortunately, it's always about the money.

Kind regards, always,

Jim.

 

Indeed did they part company with a warm handshake after the war and go their seperate ways, only to be reunited years later or did they keep in touch and thats how my folks came together or did they not even meet in their army days
so many questions ..

Tim

 

The notice dated 11 November 2021 linked at post 354 said it was an open procedure.

On 9 November 2020 it was minuted:

"Ms Fletcher said there had been conversations with potential commercial partners, but it would be necessary to have the initial records to develop this further."

Later edit:

The current chair of the Advisory Council gave his views ( sitting with two others ) in the Court of Appeal in the case cited below at 51:

1. "We do not accept that the absence of any such implied duty to retain public documents undermines the scheme of the PRA. One of the difficulties with finding an implied duty to retain records pending their selection is that the implied duty would have to apply to all records, which would overwhelm the Departments of State and the National Archives. If, however, the implied duty did not apply to all records, it is not possible to discern a principled basis from the PRA for limiting the implied duty to only some classes of the documents."
   
   THE KING (on the application of the GOOD LAW PROJECT) v THE PRIME MINISTER & Ors. - Find case law - The National Archives

 

Sorry Jim

Still cant see it, some things are beyond money. what if the server lunches itself and the files become corrupted or someone presses the delete button all things that could happen. the hard copy is best/last/only chance To retrieve the files. I just cant/ don’t want to see 80+ year old files stored so carefully this long being chucked on a bonfire or put through a shredder...…..on the off chance you may be correct I have told Ancestry I’m quite happy to take ownership of my fathers original service file to save on the storage space should they get round to digitising it before I grow old/older and die

 

Absolutely Tim but!

Not too many years back numerous government departments, on interpreting ambiguously worded government guidance, chose to destroy (yes destroy) hard copy files older than 25 years of age, because "they've all been digitised (they weren't!) and are on the (computer) system" and surprise surprise, they weren't either! Some police forces did the same too I believe. Gone. Shredded, Incinerated.

This, all after "vetting" to see if information within needed retaining or not. Erks working from a minute list of vetting criteria, designed to be a licence to bin it, because ultimately that's what senior decision makers wanted to minimise the file storage, and the staff required to care for the stuff (a bit like that "31%" tender process criteria above).

Any chance of the right thing being done and retrospectively returning to service record files that were originally partially digitised to scan them in their entirity? Extremely doubtful methinks.

That would cost more money.

Kind regards, and yes I am a trifle pessimistic on this, but not always,

Jim.

P.S. And don't get me started on sh1te 'ole PIFWCs. Folks that took a long time to run down, a long time to get hold of, walking because "the evidence has been put on the system" only no it ain't. And your statements and copious supporting notes seem to have disappeared too. :-(

Always but always; always about the money.

 

Jim

This chap is a bit of a military history buff with a bit of clout so I hear
Maybe contact him with your/our concerns regards service records
Possibly link this forum/thread to put him in the picture he may become a member
if you can deal with the recaptcha guff

Get in Touch - Lord Ashcroft

dont forget to doff yer cap

Regards

Tim

 

What's happening? Have they unpacked some of the records they received from MoD? I notice some medical information was in the the record that Kazza saw. Once the 'commercial partners' have the records and redacted and omitted what they consider to be unimportant, will we be able to go to TNA and view the original records in their entirety?

 

Hi

Just putting the idea out there.

If it does turns out that anyone can see a British Army service record, provided they visit in person and order online, would those who usually copy War Diaries at be prepared to copy these too?

Gus

 

My Grandfather's are on the catalogue at TNA (REME, born in 1908 so past the 115 year rule). I already have them from the MOD but I might try and request them next time I'm there.

I would copy them unless there they put some right royal pain-in-the-arse process that they have for the BTS files.

Edit: Scratch that last offer - Name: N Owen . Service number: 7592138 . Date of birth: 10 June 1908 . | The National Archives

It says it takes four days to prepare. I assume to check?

 

The file may be coming from the salt mine in Cheshire, or from the basement below the basement at Kew. There is one, apparently.

Having some files paper and some digital is referred to as a "mixed economy" by Kew.

---

Later Edit:

At the moment this message is coming up on attempting to find old minutes : "Sorry, the requested url is not in the archive The information you are looking for may exist in a different location. You may wish to search the web archive. Find out more about the UK Government Web Archive." -

This seems to be an endless loop of "search this" --- "No we haven't got the URL ."

The text I was looking for is this from the minutes of the User Advisory Group from September 2022 :

"It was noted that 150,000 service records had been released on Discovery since April 2022."

---

See these items: MoD briefing note presented to the old User Forum from February 2016 - very interesting - and a discussion at the Non-executive directors in November 2023 at item 7.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives...uments/ministry-of-defence-briefing-notes.pdf

https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/board-minutes-2023-11.pdf

The last URL I had to find on Google because Kew are messing about with their website and removed the "A to Z" index today - it has always been there apart from website in about 2003 - see screenshot from 2010 accessed from the web archive.





Banner on Kew website today:



Web archive:

Archive Timeline - UK Government Web Archive

 

Post deleted

 

My grandfather's records (confusingly listed under his post-war '46 to '63 service number) are listed as CLOSED with the following:

This record is closed
Opening date: 01 January 2034

• 
  Request a search of closed records

This record is closed and cannot be viewed or reproduced as a digital or printed copy.

You can Request a search of closed records for this MOD Personnel records if you can provide us with an official death certificate or published obituary, as evidence that the person in the record is no longer living. If the record can be opened, we will make it available and send you a copy.

When there is a fee for the search, the fee covers the time taken to conduct the search and provide you with a copy.

If the record is about you, you can make a request under the Data Protection Act. Find out further information and advice to do this.

================

He was born in 1918, so that's an Open Date 116 years after birth.

I highly doubt I would get to see any medical records if I got them to 'open' it earlier by supplying proof of death.

The MoD didn't supply any documentation on his six weeks of hospitalisation in Italy '44. Although there are entries on the Service Record sheet.

 

Thanks for the clarification

I have delete my entire post as it makes absolutely no sense now.

 

Hello again

Here is an example of what I am finding very confusing.

Ref: Warrant Officer Class II STEVENS KENNETH, T/110971 Royal Army Service Corps 247 Motor Boat Coy. Coxwain. Drowned when drifter MV Elizabeth Therese sank off Cape Grosso whilst en route from Piraeus to Kalamai. There were some survivors rescued by 11 KRRC and RN and Greek navy.

CWGC Record

https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/2148226/kenneth-stevens/

Listed on the Brookwood Memorial for the 3rd July 1945.

Listed here too

Leicestershire War Memorials

So I can find at least three publicly available sources listing him as dead.

Yet

Name: K Stevens . Service number: T/110971 . Date of birth: 17 September 1913 . | The National Archives

Says his service record is closed until 01 January 2029 so they must be assuming he is not dead and invoking the 115 year rule.

I am assuming their logic must be as no British person has ever lived longer than 115 years, must therefore be dead 115 years beyond thier DOB.

But as there is much overwhelming evidence that this person has been dead since 1945, surely this should listed as open?

I believe the MOD were happy to accept a CGWC reference as proof of death when they looked after things.

Gus