1921 census

[Redroger]

Political? Me??

[coombs]

I dont know why this "privacy" thing has to get in the way of the early release as you can access BMD records up to 2006 online. I have looked up the BMDs of close friends and have found their mothers maiden name, when they married and such. Not like I would ever, ever send off for the BMDs but anyone can access the indexes of anyone born, married or died up to 2006.

[Redroger]

A legally binding committment to 100 years closure was given, and authority must obey its own laws unless they have been amended.

[Guy Etchells]

Which is why I suggest the law is changed.

Let us face it there was no promise of 100 years secrecy given to the population when the 1921 census was taken.

So there would be no breach of promise.

The first suggestion of 100 years secrecy came 45 years after the census was taken and was introduced to save the GRO the onerous expense of microfilming thousands of census schedules.

The first promise of 100 years secrecy was unlawfully made on the 1981 & 1991 schedules. The Registrar General who made those assertions later admitted he had no authority to make the claim.

Due to those claims being made the Members of Parliament were fed false information before voting on an amendment to the 1920 Census Act.
It is that amendment that stops the 1921 census being released today.

I would therefore suggest that it is morally wrong to support a law that was passed on the back of false information.

In view of the fact that no assurance of 100 years secrecy was given in 1921 and in view of the fact that MPs were mislead about the fact that no assurances of 100 years secrecy was given in 1921 before the census was completed. There is are strong moral grounds to release the 1921 census today.
Cheers
Guy

[coombs]

I agree with Guy and from what he has said before there was no, I say no assurance at the time that the 1921 census would be closed for 100 years. No promises were made to the nation that the census would remain closed for 100 years.

[Parmesan]

well that's the idea surely?  to amend that law?

[davidft]

Well the national archives are still of the opinion that you won't be getting any other censuses until 100 years have lapsed


"The decennial census records for the years 1921 onwards (apart from 1931 - destroyed by fire - and 1941 - no census) are in the care of the Registrar General. However RG 48/591 shows that some census schedules for 1921 were collected in the north of England by an unauthorised person and may be missing from the records held by the Registrar General. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the 2000 Act) applies to census records as to other government documents. However section 44[1] of the 2000 Act has an exception for records which are prohibited from disclosure by statute and section 8(2)[1] of the Census Act 1920 (the 1920 Act) contains such a prohibition. The statutory prohibition means that the census records from 1921 onwards are confidential and not open to inspection in any circumstances until 100 years after their creation, undertakings having been given at the time of each census that the information would be used only for the preparation and publication of statistical data. "

[Parmesan]

there's only one thing certain in life ....

[Guy Etchells]

David apart from the fact that the National Archives frequently get their facts wrong and have a very poor conception of the laws of England, as has been proven by the number of FoI applications upheld against them. The whole essence of this thread is a move to have the law changed to allow access to the census.

The 1920 Census Act as amended by the 1991 Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991 prohibits access to any census taken under the 1920 Act forever.
Not for 100 years as the National Archives claim but forever.
There has to be a change of law before access is allowed and that change of law may as well be now whilst the government is in the mood to amend such legislation.

The 1911 census which was released early contained the following words-
"The contents of the Schedule will be treated as strictly confidential".
The following also appeared on the reverse of the Schedule:
"The contents of the Schedule will be treated as confidential. Strict care will be taken that no information is disclosed with regard to individual persons. The returns are not to be used for proof of age, as in connection with Old Age Pensions, or for any other purpose than the preparation of Statistical Tables".

The 1921 schedule only contains the words -
"STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL" it does not carry the rest of the wording the 1911 census carries as transcribed above.

This shows that the National Archives are actually bending the facts to suit themselves rather than give the true picture.
I have already given (in the thread now closed) the url to a site that contains an image of a blank schedule. If you view that, you will see for yourself the National Archives are making false claims.

Cheers
Guy