RootsChat.Com
Census Lookups General Lookups => Census and Resource Discussion => Census Lookup and Resource Requests => Topic started by: Gossypium on Wednesday 15 November 17 15:26 GMT (UK)
-
Recently I wrote to my MP to ask if the 1921, 1931 and 1941 censuses could be published on the grounds that the 1920, 1930 and 1940 US censuses have been published and are searchable on various websites. The period of closure of census records in the USA is 72 years.
My MP received a reply from John Pullinger, National Statistician and Chief Executive of the UK Statistics Authority, to say that there are no plans at present to review the period of closure or the Government's policy to retain all personal census information for 100 years. Government seeks to uphold strict confidentiality assurances given to respondents.
Assuming that nobody would respond to questions asked by a census enumerator until the age of 18, the household returns in the 1931 census are unlikely to have been completed by anyone who was born after 1913. Someone born in 1912 would be 104 or 105 today, of whom there cannot be very many living. Therefore it would be reasonable to ask your MP if the UK Government will review its policy and the period of closure such that the 1921 and 1931 censuses may be published earlier than planned. This would still uphold the confidentiality assurances given to respondents born after 1913.
If you would like the 1921 and 1931 censuses to be published earlier than planned, please write to your MP whose email address can be found here:
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/
-
Apparently the 1931 census was destroyed by fire
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=1931_Census
ADDED There was no census in 1941 either due to WW2 but there is the 1939 register which is available now on FindMyPast
-
Thanks Rosie. I have just written again to my MP as follows:
I should like to request the Government to review its policy of retention and the period of closure such that the 1921 census may be published earlier than planned.
This would still uphold the confidentiality assurances given to respondents born after 1903, assuming that nobody would respond to questions asked by a census enumerator until the age of 18.
The household returns in the 1921 census are unlikely to have been completed by anyone who was born after 1903.
Someone born in 1902 would be 114 or 115 today. I am sure that Mr Pullinger knows how many are living, likely a very small number.
I understand that the 1931 census in its entirety was destroyed by fire and that no census was taken in 1941 due to the War, but there is the 1939 register has been published and can be searched by the public on www.findmypast.com making my request regarding the 1921 census a reasonable one!
Rosie, I will report back when I receive a response,but it would be good if you and others wrote similarly to your respective MPs.
-
If you do a search on this site you will see this question comes up from time to time. There is no chance of the 1921 census being released earlier as explained in the earlier threads and the reason why. I am afraid you are going to have to wait until 1922 like the rest of us.
Also your analogy between the 1939 National Registration and the 1921 Census is totally erroneous as they are different documents authorised under different legislation. It is because of the respective legislation that the 1939 could be published and the 1921 can not without first passing new legislation and the Government have their hands rather full in respect of legislation for the next couple of years at least.
-
Thank you David or your comments. However, if you do not ask, you do not get. Maybe we can find one or more MPs whose hobby in genealogy and might be willing to sponsor a Private Member's Bill?
-
I am sure my MP has more to worry about than getting the 1921 census released early (if at all). I can think of far more important things that I would like him to deal with ::)
-
I disagree Davidft for a number of reasons.
1) Government policy is just that policy it is not legally binding.
2) The Advisory Council on Public Records and Archives (ACPRA) October 1998 statement about the closure of census records stated-
"The Council considered the appropriateness of the closure period of 100 years which applied to the decennial census of population. It concluded that since undertakings of confidentiality had been given in the past by successive governments to people making returns, any reduction in the closure period for censuses up to that taken in 1991 would be a breach of confidence. It also felt, however, that a shorter period, of 80 years for instance, might be appropriate for future censuses."
However in December 2003 it was admitted that ACPRA had not considered the implications of the Freedom of Information Act for this issue.
The Freedom of Information Act states
“1 General right of access to information held by public authorities.
(1)Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—
(a)to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and
(b)if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.”
In other words government policy is going against a law that governs England & Wales.
That being the case the government are required to comply with the law or change the law.
There are a number of other reasons why the 1921 census could be released now if the will was there as I found out when I was researching the legal aspects of releasing the 1921 census.
Note I do not say releasing the 1921 census early because as the law stands today no further census can ever be released.
Cheers
Guy
-
I disagree Davidft for a number of reasons.
Yes but then you always do.
I was hoping to be out of this thread before you found it but alas not. OK so you think you are an expert on this, I and many others more informed than me disagree. Rather than have yet another argument with you I will leave it there. As I said earlier in the thread this topic comes up often and its possible to look back and see the arguments on both sides rather than rehearse them here yet again.
-
Thanks Rosie. I have just written again to my MP as follows:
I should like to request the Government to review its policy of retention and the period of closure such that the 1921 census may be published earlier than planned.
This would still uphold the confidentiality assurances given to respondents born after 1903, assuming that nobody would respond to questions asked by a census enumerator until the age of 18.
The household returns in the 1921 census are unlikely to have been completed by anyone who was born after 1903.
A census enumerator didn't ask questions. Their responsibility was delivering and collecting household returns and chasing up any late ones. It was up to the head of household to ensure the census return was completed correctly and ready for collection.
You cannot say who may have filled in a household return. A child or teenager may have done so. My 9 year-old aunt was the only other person in the household with her aged, illiterate grandfather, a farmer, on an earlier census, her parents being out of the country. It's possible that she completed the form, and that the spelling mistakes were hers. Her grandfather certainly didn't.
Everyone who had been born by census day 1921 was included. Many of them are still alive. The confidentiality applies to them.
-
I am sure my MP has more to worry about than getting the 1921 census released early (if at all). I can think of far more important things that I would like him to deal with ::)
It's difficult enough to get Private Members Bills on really, really important matters passed. They don't get much time allocated. Some are "talked out". Parliament's timetable is crammed for the foreseeable future.
-
Well, Maiden Stone, it is a question of reasonableness although you a free to pick nits if that is what you want to do!
Someone born in 1921 would be aged 95 or 96 today. They would not have completed or scribbled on a census return. Their births would have been registered so the names of their parents are a matter of public record. They did not have an occupation or a spouse, so what facts about a minor born in 1921 could be sensitive and merit confidentiality today?
Please be reasonable. All I am suggesting is that genealogists write to their MPs in a similar manner to my letters/emails because we may get a result. It takes about 5 minutes to prepare an email to your MP.
I know a genealogist who will have his 91st birthday next week and who would love to have access to the 1921 census as his birthday present because it may contain the answers to some questions which are hanging in the air. He may not be around in 2022 if we all have to wait until then.
-
The good news is that the 1931 Scottish census is intact.
Imber
-
Bless their Sporrens! Someone born in 1931 in Scotland would be aged 85 or 86 today and would not have completed or scribbled on a census return in 1931. Genealogists interested in Scottish censuses should ask their MPs about publication of the 1931 Scottish Census earlier than planned.
I wonder if the Censuses of Northern Ireland taken in 1921 and 1931 have survived?
-
I maybe wrong but I believe the FOI Scotland Act Excludes disclosure of personal census data and have read that the 2021 census will have a nondisclosure for 100 years not sure about previous census
and lastly I have a living relative who may have completed the 1921 census there are still a few of them about
-
Did the population at the time of the 1921 census think or understand the details given would be confidential for their lifetime.
I very much doubt it.
The majority of previous census had been released on average after 80 years some considerably earlier.
There was not and never had been any privacy law in the UK that is a figment of the imagination of people in the 21st century.
In any case what is confidential about the details of the 1921 census
1921 Census holds details of
Name & Surname
Relationship to head of household
Age, sex, married or single for children under 15 whether parents alive or dead
Birthplace and nationality
Education (i.e. whether attending school full or part-time) Occupation, Employer & place of work
Married men, widows & widowers also had to state the number and tick a box for the age of each living child under 16 years old
As can be seen from the above no personal information was asked, no questions about medical condition etc.
The Irish, Welsh and Scottish census differed slightly and also asked about language.
Practically all of the above information would have been common knowledge to the family's friends & neighbours, unlike today people talked to each other and shock horror often went into each others houses, they lived in communities.
Cheers
Guy
-
Thanks Rosie. I have just written again to my MP as follows:
I should like to request the Government to review its policy of retention and the period of closure such that the 1921 census may be published earlier than planned.
This would still uphold the confidentiality assurances given to respondents born after 1903, assuming that nobody would respond to questions asked by a census enumerator until the age of 18.
The household returns in the 1921 census are unlikely to have been completed by anyone who was born after 1903.
A census enumerator didn't ask questions. Their responsibility was delivering and collecting household returns and chasing up any late ones. It was up to the head of household to ensure the census return was completed correctly and ready for collection.
You cannot say who may have filled in a household return. A child or teenager may have done so. My 9 year-old aunt was the only other person in the household with her aged, illiterate grandfather, a farmer, on an earlier census, her parents being out of the country. It's possible that she completed the form, and that the spelling mistakes were hers. Her grandfather certainly didn't.
Everyone who had been born by census day 1921 was included. Many of them are still alive. The confidentiality applies to them.
Part of the enumerator's job when he/she delivered the schedule was to ask how many rooms were occupied by the family (certain rooms were not to be counted) he/she also had to ask how many rooms were shared with other people. If necessary the enumerator must fill in the schedule obtaining the information by enquiry.
In any case if a person really wanted to make a confidential return they could do so by telling the enumerator when he/she delivered the schedule, such schedules were noted as such in the enumerator’s returns and given to the enumerator in a sealed envelope they could therefore be redacted as confidential information is on the 1939 National Registration.
Cheers
Guy
-
Guy I agree there is nothing confidential in the census and that most would've been known to family and friends and the local community but it is no longer restricted to the local community with the internet we do see some people have no regard for others when adding things to their family trees ie living people illegitimate children divorce which may not be known to their children or grandchildren
Also
According to 1921cenus.og webpage the government seems to be firmly sticking to the 100 year rule with a possible reason being that for the 2021 census there would have to be strong promises of confidentially which wouldn't sit well with the early release of the 1921 census when the promise was made at the time that individuals details would never be made public
So possibly people filling in the census were under the impression it wouldn't be released
-
As well as just putting a post on here, why not start an on line petition and put links to that here and on other genealogy forums? If it gets more than 10,000 people supporting it, it will be considered for a debate.
https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/sign-a-petition/
-
According to 1921cenus.og webpage the government seems to be firmly sticking to the 100 year rule with a possible reason being that for the 2021 census there would have to be strong promises of confidentially which wouldn't sit well with the early release of the 1921 census when the promise was made at the time that individuals details would never be made public
So possibly people filling in the census were under the impression it wouldn't be released
Please note all my remarks are about the 1921 census for England & Wales as the Scottish 1921 contained an additional question and comes under different legislation.
Rather than go to a third party site like 1921census.org which though a good site does contain inaccuracies try. This contains various links to census material.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01l25/
Or to see a blank 1921 census schedule.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01l26/
As I have mentioned before there was no assurance of confidentiality for either the lifetime of those who appear on the census or for 100 years (the 100 year rule did not come into existence until 1966 approx. 45 years after the census was taken) or that it would never be released.
The census did state STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL on the face of the schedule but the earlier census also contained such wording and were released on average 80 years after they were taken (i.e. within the lifetime of many who appeared on them) so the expectation was the census would be released in their lifetime.
To say anything else is to distort history.
It was also possible for anyone who wished to keep their information confidential the opportunity to make a sealed confidential return (I don’t have details of how many took up that option but it would be possible to find out).
In the case of these their schedules could be redacted for 100 years if thought appropriate.
However what confidence would the public have in Government who publish a consultation paper claiming that in future all government documents will be open and available with only sensitive information redacted pass a law in 2000 entitled the Freedom of Information Act-
( http://www.rootschat.com/links/01l27/ )
-which as its first clause enshrines into law-
(“1 General right of access to information held by public authorities.
(1)Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—
(a)to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and
(b)if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.”)
-then refuses to honour that undertaking?
It is far more important that the current crop of MPs honour the current undertakings set in law rather than the ambiguous statements written on a census form almost 100 years ago that could be argued were aimed at the officials handling the schedules rather than the public.
Cheers
Guy
-
According to 1921cenus.og webpage the government seems to be firmly sticking to the 100 year rule with a possible reason being that for the 2021 census there would have to be strong promises of confidentially which wouldn't sit well with the early release of the 1921 census when the promise was made at the time that individuals details would never be made public
So possibly people filling in the census were under the impression it wouldn't be released
Please note all my remarks are about the 1921 census for England & Wales as the Scottish 1921 contained an additional question and comes under different legislation.
Rather than go to a third party site like 1921census.org which though a good site does contain inaccuracies try. This contains various links to census material.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01l25/
Or to see a blank 1921 census schedule.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01l26/
As I have mentioned before there was no assurance of confidentiality for either the lifetime of those who appear on the census or for 100 years (the 100 year rule did not come into existence until 1966 approx. 45 years after the census was taken) or that it would never be released.
The census did state STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL on the face of the schedule but the earlier census also contained such wording and were released on average 80 years after they were taken (i.e. within the lifetime of many who appeared on them) so the expectation was the census would be released in their lifetime.
To say anything else is to distort history.
It was also possible for anyone who wished to keep their information confidential the opportunity to make a sealed confidential return (I don’t have details of how many took up that option but it would be possible to find out).
In the case of these their schedules could be redacted for 100 years if thought appropriate.
However what confidence would the public have in Government who publish a consultation paper claiming that in future all government documents will be open and available with only sensitive information redacted pass a law in 2000 entitled the Freedom of Information Act-
( http://www.rootschat.com/links/01l27/ )
-which as its first clause enshrines into law-
(“1 General right of access to information held by public authorities.
(1)Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—
(a)to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and
(b)if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.”)
-then refuses to honour that undertaking?
It is far more important that the current crop of MPs honour the current undertakings set in law rather than the ambiguous statements written on a census form almost 100 years ago that could be argued were aimed at the officials handling the schedules rather than the public.
Cheers
Guy
Sorry on phone or would've cut some of the quote
My interpretation of the census site was that it covered England and Wales I don't know anywhere near what you do so could be wrong but thought the 1920 Act said that it would be illegal to release information from the census so people in the U.K. possibly understood that when filling in the form it would be confidential
As for Scotland I believe the 1901 and 1911 census were statute barred from being realeased before. 100 years as will the other census according to Scotlands People
-
Sorry on phone or would've cut some of the quote
My interpretation of the census site was that it covered England and Wales I don't know anywhere near what you do so could be wrong but thought the 1920 Act said that it would be illegal to release information from the census so people in the U.K. possibly understood that when filling in the form it would be confidential
As for Scotland I believe the 1901 and 1911 census were statute barred from being realeased before. 100 years as will the other census according to Scotlands People
No in fact the Census Act 1920 gave the registrar General the power to provide information to anyone which in his opinion it is reasonable for that authority or person to require
Census Act 1920
http://www.rootschat.com/links/0wkf/
“4.-(1) The Registrar-General shall, as soon as may be after the taking of a census, prepare reports on the census returns, and every such report shall be printed and laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(2) The Registrar-General may, if he so thinks fit, at the request and cost of any local authority or person, cause abstracts to be prepared containing any such statistical information, being information which is not contained in the reports made by him under this section and which in his opinion it is reasonable for that authority or person to require, as can be derived from the census returns.”
The above power was removed by the Census Confidentiality Act 1991
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01l28/
which made it illegal to open any census made under the Census Act 1920 at any time in the future unless there is a change in the law.
There was a change in the law in 2000 with the Freedom of Information Act 2000
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01l27/
which as I wrote earlier gave everyone the right to access information held by a public authority (the meaning of a public authority is given in the Act).
When I decided to campaign for access to the 1921 in 2010 I took legal advice on the points I have mentioned and many more to ensure my reading of the Acts was viewed as correct.
I even (against my better judgement) started a petition, I have always thought petitions are counter productive, but I dropped the campaign when I found genealogists were unfortunately too apathetic to support the campaign.
Many people thought it was a good idea but few were willing to go further than that.
Cheers
Guy
-
Is this a five minute argument or a 30 minute argument?
Martin
-
Sorry if I was being argumentative that wasn't my intention
-
Is this a five minute argument or a 30 minute argument?
Martin
I would not call it an argument at all it is a discussion where views are exchanged.
Isn't that what a forum is for, a place for people to connect in dialogue?
Cheers
Guy
-
"Is this a five minute argument or a 30 minute argument?"
It was a quotation.
Martin
-
"Is this a five minute argument or a 30 minute argument?"
It was a quotation.
Martin
'Oh no it isn't' ;D
-
Mean_genie,
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore. If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
Martin
-
That was never five minutes!
-
I told you... I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!
Martin