Genealogy Chat

Doing research on my family history myself, I can understand how helpful it would be to see the census earlier than the proposed 2011 date, However, I have to agree with the government on this point. As a point of the leagal status of this matter, we could not expect a law to be passed in this way, allowing the 1911 census to be seen earlier as this would set a precedent for others to be seen earlier, thus erroding the confidence of the data protection act of the 100 year roll over. People these days are living a lot longer and so many of the people on the 1911 census may still be alive and possibly living in the same household. Would we feel confident in giving our details out to companies if we did not have the guarantee that they would not be passed on? Maybe not. I think we should take this into consideration, even though it would make things easier for those tracing family history.

Hi all There was a website a while back, where there was this letter to send. To: [email protected] Dear Mr Beith 1911 CENSUS LIES James Clappison MP, a member of your Committee, appears to have become the latest of a long line of parliamentary victims of government deception in connection with the 1911 Census and I would be glad if you are able to confirm that all your Committee members have been given an opportunity to comment on the minister's letter to Mr Clappison. I realise that your Committee has a very full programme but I hope you will agree to find time during the 2003-04 parliamentary session to conduct a very short inquiry into the problem of government deception in this matter. Like those who've recently emailed you from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Eire, England, Malta, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America, I hope an inquiry will be concluded in time for the Government to release the 1911 Census in 2004 - after 92 years of closure. And this was the reply. I write in response to your message to Rt Hon Alan Beith MP, Chairman of the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department. It is not clear why reference should have been made, as a number of correspondents have done, to the Civil Service Code and the Prime Minister's Ministerial Code. Mr Beith is neither a civil servant nor a Minister, but a backbench Member of Parliament. Mr Beith has therefore decided to follow usual Select Committee practice and ask me to reply. The importance many people attach to access to census records is recognised. The Committee, however, has limited resources, and must focus its attention on those matters it considers of the most urgent importance. The Committee is currently undertaking important inquiries into the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, which provides representation at court for vulnerable children; and Asylum and Immigration Appeals, an inquiry which will consider crucial questions of the proper treatment of those wishing to enter this country and of the appropriate use of very large amounts of public money. The Committee has also considered the vital constitutional questions surrounding the role of the Lord Chancellor and his Department. I have at this stage nothing further to add to my previous response to questions on this subject. Should the Committee decide to undertake an inquiry into the matters you mention, full details will be available on the Committee's website, www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lcdcom.cfm .. In the meantime, I regret that I will be unable to enter into any further correspondence on this matter. Yours sincerely Huw Yardley Clerk, Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department I dont understand a lot of it but they said if everybody sends this letter, perhaps something might get done. Debbie

I did the same as you - and had a semi reply from mine - postcard thanking me for drawing it to his attention and saying he would get back to me. Dated 13th July. I am not holding my breath! Rosi Colchester-ish, ESS

Further to previous message son this subject - The government has refused to release the 1911 Census early even though there was no confidentiality clause. The latest info I have is from a letter sent to my MP (from the Rt Hon Alan Beith, MP the Chairman , Committee on the Lord Chancellors Dept) - and my MP sent me a copy. It states: "The argument that the 1920 Act was not passed until nine years after the 1911 Census was taken does not help: there is no reason why legislation passed in 1920 should not have applied to the release of data collected earlier. The overriding consideration is clearly the Government's view that any breach of the 100-year protection would reduce public confidence in the confidentiality of future censuses. That is clearly a matter of argument, but the legal position seems to be beyond doubt." I take this to mean that there WAS NO confidentiality clause in the 1911 Census BUT when a law was passed 9 years later IT WAS BACKDATED to include the census!!! For further info look at the Web Page - (http://home.clara.net/denis.mccready/index.htm) Mr Denis McCready Editor UK CENSUS LIES Solihull, England I contacted Denis and sent a letter to my MP and apparently I am the only person whose MP has replied. They are all on holiday now for the Summer recess, but it doesn't stop you writing to yours. ALL 500,000 OF YOU. Vera, Manchester LAN