Access to the 1921 Census

[Guy Etchells]

................ the need not to jeopardise the creditability of censuses by breaking previously given undertakings

As Guy has correctly pointed out (reply #15) there were no undertakings given for the 1921 census.

There was limited release of personal census data for genealogical purposes up to 1971 (ie up to and including information contained in the 1961 Census). In The Times of 13 July 1971 Sir Keith Joseph, Secretary of State for Social Services, was reported as stating:

"In view, however, of the public concern at the time of the recent census about the complete confidentiality of the information they provided, the Registrar General has decided to discontinue the practice of releasing anything at all within the 100-year period for the purpose of genealogy".

The reply of the Garter King of Arms in The Times of 14 July 1972 is also of interest in that even at that time a 70 year rule (not 100 year rule) was being suggested (albeit with restrictions):

"For genealogical research the old census records are of value, less for the information derived from them directly than as a means of entry into other record series. More often than not the genealogist wants from the census no more than date and place of birth and I venture to suggest that, with the consent of the person concerned or one of his direct descendants, these items alone could be released from censuses up to, say, that of 1901 without doing any damage to the public's confidence in the Government's assurances.

The benefits to research and to the thousands of people interested in tracing their own family history would be great".

For those who are concerned about confidentiality, the instructions for completion of the 1921 census form and the information that was disclosed in that census, as shown in the following link, may be helpful:

http://www.jaydax.co.uk/genlinks/images/1921CensusForm.pdf

The changes from the 1911 Census were:

Extra questions: -

1. whether a marriage has been dissolved by divorce
2. where each person works
3. the industry within which someone works

Deleted questions: -

1.  the number of children
2.  disabilities, namely, blindness, deafness or dumbness (on the grounds that the answers given in the 1911 census were unreliable and parents had objected to giving this information about their children).

Nigel

In addition the Registrar General did not have the authority to add the assurance to the census schedule in 1981 and 1991 that the census would be witheld for 100 years.

On the 14 March 2005 : Column 77W Hansard reports a question by Mr. John Taylor
"To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action was taken by Ministers in his Department to establish that the Registrar General had statutory authority to state that personal information from the 1981 and 1991 decennial population censuses for England and Wales would be retained in his Department for 100 years before being released. [221179]"

In his letter of reply Mr Len Cook the then Registrar General admitted-
"This pledge asserts authority that the Registrar General does not have."

In other words the pledge was not worth the paper it was written on.

It should also be pointed out that that pledge swayed some MPs who would have voted against the 1991 Census Confidentiality Act.

Surely it is wrong when legislation can be enacted due to false information being fed to the House of Commons.
Cheers
Guy

[Mort29]

According to a BBC report the there was talk by MPs that the 1911 would bring in about £40 million pounds.

I have not tried to confirm that figure so avoided using it.

I suspect that any 'staff work' done by a relevant Minister's dept will look to the 1911 as being the most recent example.

If that mooted figure you show of £40M is gross revenues reported by FindMyPast / Brightsolid, the researchers would need to know the nett figure flowing into the public purse.

[Nick29]

In an odd sort of way, would it open a floodgate?   If I read Guy correctly around the 100 year rule, we could legally request sight of the 1921, 1931 and so on. 

After the 1921 census, there is nothing to see until 1951 (although there was a rudimentary 'census' in 1939), because the 1931 census was completely destroyed by fire, and there was no census in 1941, because of the war.

[MagicMirror]

Surely the only way you can tell if a child is illigitimate is by the birth cert, with the absence of the name of the father?  Unless the head of house has clearly put on relationship that the child is illigitimate...which would be few and far between surely?

I have certainly seen one 1911 schedule relating to a cousin of my gt grandmother where her 3 children  have been clearly marked as illegitimate by the head of household (their grandfather).  It still strikes me as odd that he would have included this info. unasked, but it's right there in his own handwriting.  The children were aged between 2 weeks & 4 years old so any or all of them could still have been alive 90 years later.

[Sloe Gin]

the 1921 census will clearly show her being a bastard child to an unmarried mother.

Can you be sure of this though?  Plenty of unmarried ladies with children gave their status as 'widow' in previous censuses.

[marcie dean]

I have seen it stated by a registrar in Scotland that although the woman had been married and the child she was carrying was her husband's that because her husband had died, the child was noted on the birth certificate as illegitimate, which seems strange and I do not understand how this could happen.

If a child is born mid/late dec and not registered until mid Jan the following year, would the child not appear on the 1911 census and you would have to wait until the 1921 census to see their name clearly marked.  Thats on the understanding that in Scotland the census information is only made available either every ten years or 100 yrs.?

marcie

[Guy Etchells]

I think this is a stupid and mischievous idea, and personally I am disappointed that Guy has been allowed to bring it up yet again. In my opinion it is nothing short of trolling  

The simple fact is you won't get access to the 1921 census early. If you don't believe me look up the evidence given to Parliament by the ONS on their preparations for the 2011 census and the need not to jeopardise the creditability of censuses by breaking previously given undertakings

With regard to the evidence given by the ONS, it shows that people are -
"97. Concerns over confidentiality of data and data-sharing within Government are at the forefront of the public consciousness in a manner perhaps not envisaged a decade ago. Londoners are far more aware of the capacity of Government bodies to share the data they hold on citizens between them. No matter how robust the procedural and legislative safeguards in place to prevent inappropriate and unauthorised data sharing, issues of trust and data security are bound to be raised during the run-up to the Census and on Census night. "

That shows the population is concerned not with the data being made public as many would have us believe but that the population is concerned about government departments sharing the information.

"98. We well understand the purpose of the Census, the independence from Government of the UK Statistics Authority and the Office for National Statistics and the scrupulous safeguards which are in place to prevent data sharing and the disclosure of personal data. Others, for any number of reasons, may not: some, for example, may fear that accurate completion of a Census return will result in data being passed on to other central and local government departments and agencies, prompting reviews of benefit status or eligibility for council tax discounts. "

It is totally wrong to claim that the population is concerned about the public knowing their information. They are frightened of the government knowing their information.

"99. The purpose of the Census, and the use to which the information will be put, may need careful explanation to those resident in London who have fled repressive regimes or who are in communities with no tradition of engagement with the authorities to provide information of this nature. Colin Barrow, Leader of Westminster City Council, suggested that certain migrant groups may, because of their countries of origin, have an understandable inherent suspicion of providing information about themselves and their families to authorities:

      "Then there is fear of authority—a lot of people come here because they don't like where they've been, and it's authority that is the reason why they don't like where they've been; lack of cultural understanding—some countries have no tradition of Census, engaging with authorities and getting involved in all that, and I am briefed that Somalia is one such."[84]"

Again this displays the fact the population has a fear of governments not other individuals knowing the facts

It is such distortions of the truth that leads to data such as that supplied on census to be withheld from the public.
When the actual facts are disclosed the fears are entirely different from those some would like us to believe.

The census is put in jeopardy by people like Len Cook one time Registrar General making claim he was not authorised to make.
People see they have been mislead and then refuse to believe what authorities say in the future.
Cheers
Guy

[Windsor87]

In an odd sort of way, would it open a floodgate?   If I read Guy correctly around the 100 year rule, we could legally request sight of the 1921, 1931 and so on. 

After the 1921 census, there is nothing to see until 1951 (although there was a rudimentary 'census' in 1939), because the 1931 census was completely destroyed by fire, and there was no census in 1941, because of the war.

This is a bit off topic, but you will have to forgive me if I'm trolling...

The source of undisputed knowledge (wikipedia) states that the 1931 Census for England and Wales was destroyed by fire. Did the 1931 Scottish Census survive?

Given the high level of knowledge displayed on this thread about census rules, laws, misconceptions etc it seems like the best place to ask.

Windsor87

[Mort29]

It did indeed survive - it has never left Scotland. 100 years closure does however apply to the 1901 -> Scottish Census.