HC Deb 29 March 2004 vol 419 cc1394-402

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]

10.51 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

I fully appreciate that the subject of tonight's Adjournment debate might not feature in the editorial columns of tomorrow's newspapers, notwithstanding the fact that 1911 was a vintage year, when Lloyd George introduced old age pensions in his "people's Budget". However, I have received representations on the matter from several constituents. They are generally people who are interested in tracing their family histories and keen for the records to be brought into the public domain to assist that. I know that other hon. Members will have been contacted by constituents in similar circumstances. Indeed, only last week, I tabled early-day motion 871 on the release of the 1911 census data and it has already received 28 signatures from hon. Members of all parties.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) who has been very supportive and I am pleased that several hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who chairs the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, are present.

The Minister will know about the phenomenal interest that was generated by the release of the 1901 census records in January 2002. He will also know that demand for the information was so great that 1.2 million people were trying to access the internet site that contained the records every hour. That somewhat outstripped the initial forecasts of 1.2 million users a day. That unforeseen demand resulted in the site's withdrawal on 7 January 2002, some five days after its launch. A full service was resumed 11 months later on 21 November. Whatever the Minister thinks about the release date for the records, I hope he will accept that when the 1911 census data are released, it must be done much more effectively.

First, I want to consider the period of closure—the time that must pass before the data are released. The Lord Chancellor recently advised an hon. Member that the period of census closure in Britain is normally 100 years. Only six out of the 15 pre-1910 United Kingdom censuses have been closed for 100 years. The details of nine out of 15 have been released after less than 90 years. The average closure period for censuses in Britain is 80 years and, according to the national archives in Dublin, records of the 1911 census in Northern Ireland were released in 1960, some 49 years after closure.

Of course, I accept that the situation north of the border is now devolved, but it has become apparent to me through my correspondence with the General Register Office for Scotland that, in these matters, the General Registrar for Scotland will take the same line on the release of personal information as his colleagues in England.

I do not wish to second-guess what the Minister will say tonight, but he will be aware that I have already tabled a number of parliamentary questions on this subject and I think that I can glean a fair idea from the answer that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) on 10 December 2003, in which he stated: The 1911 census returns, now in the custody of the National Archives, are currently closed for 100 years by the Lord Chancellor's Instrument no. 12 of 1966, on the grounds that the information was supplied in strict confidence."—[Official Report, 10 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 457W.] Before the Minister restates that position tonight, it might be useful to examine the legal basis for that view, to have a brief look at some of the financial benefits that could result from an alternative approach, and to consider the situation that pertains in the Republic of Ireland.

I shall turn first to the question of the legal basis. The principal point is that the original guarantee given to those who completed the 1911 census gave no time guarantee for the duration before which the records would be made public. The confidentiality assurances that were given to people in 1911 were outlined in a written answer that I received on 18 December. Those assurances stated: '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."'—[Official Report, 18 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1112W.] On a strict construction of that, one might say that no census would ever be released. The Government are clearly of the view, however, that that guarantee does not prevent the release of documents after a significant period has elapsed. That period is at the Lord Chancellor's discretion, and to hide behind the idea that we are keeping to a time guarantee given to those who completed census returns is slightly less than accurate. The 2001 census, for example, stated explicitly that records would be held confidentially for 100 years, but the situation in 1911 was very different.

The Lord Chancellor's Instrument No. 12 of 1966 established the 100-year embargo rule. Prior to that, the delay in making records public had been much shorter. For example, the 1841 and 1851 records for England and Wales were both released in 1912. Scottish records were also held for less than 100 years. The 1891 Scottish returns, for instance, were made public after a delay of only 64 years. Given that the release of returns after 50 to 80 years was the practice in the first half of the last century, that no confidentiality time period was given on the 1911 census and that the Lord Chancellor's Instrument No. 12 of 1966 was 55 years away at that point, I would be very surprised if anyone who participated in that census really believed that their return would be held for exactly 100 years and not a day less. What is more, section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958 provides for the general release of records after 50 years, and that was reduced to 30 years in 1967. The Lord Chancellor has the power to release the records early. The only question is whether he wants to.

Mr. John Taylor (Solihull) (Con)

I have a constituent who would like me to ask a question about the release of census records in Scotland, but how can I do that as an English MP?

Mr. Carmichael

If the hon. Gentleman wants to enter into correspondence with the Registrar General for Scotland, my experience is that the Registrar General will be more than happy to help. indeed, when the hon. Gentleman reads the earlier part of my speech inHansard tomorrow—I know he was unable to be here for the start of it, when I referred to him—he will see that 1 have already explored with the Registrar General the question of release in Scotland. The approach that he takes is that it will be largely the same as that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

As a Member from a fiscally responsible party, I always endeavour to ensure that any call I make for Government action is fully costed. The good news for the Government in relation to this call is that such action would increase revenue flows to the Treasury. According to the National Audit Office report on the release of the 1901 census, "Unlocking the Past: the 1901 Census Online", the internet site allowing access to the England and Wales records generated revenues of £4.5 million by 31 October 2003. Of course, the fear is that the longer the 1911 census is not available to the public, the more revenue-raising potential will decline.

The release of the 1901 census was more successful in Scotland than in England and Wales. There were not the same problems of over-demand for information leading to website failure. The NAO report suggests that that was the case for two reasons: an up-front charge for access to the Scottish website and the progressive release of data on microfilm before its release online. I hesitate to call on the Government to increase charges for access to records, especially given the revenues made without such charges for the England and Wales records, but I ask the Minister seriously to consider the release of the data on microfilm ahead of online release. If the Government are to stick rigidly to the 2012 date, that would be welcomed by many genealogists and would assist with an effective release of the records so that additional delays, as happened in 2002, would not occur again.

In 1901 and 1911, the whole of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Censuses were carried out there along similar lines to those in England, Scotland and Wales. The 1901 Irish census returns have been available in the Republic on film since 1971, and the 1911 census returns since 2000. Does the Minister not think it strange that the 1901 Irish records were available on film in Dublin some 30 years before the Public Record Office in Northern Ireland released microfilms and that while there is already access to the 1911 records in the south, the north of Ireland will have to wait another eight years?

I am keen that the Minister should have adequate time to reply to the points that I have raised, so I shall make one final substantive comment. The more I have looked into the matter, the more I have realised that it comes down to a question of freedom of information and the public interest on the one hand and the right of privacy given to individual citizens on the other. In this case, the right of the people who are researching their family histories—genealogists—has to be balanced against the right of people who participated in the 1911 census to have their responses kept confidential. On this matter, I gently suggest to the Minister that the Government have so far got the balance wrong. In a recent letter to me, the Registrar General for Scotland stated: Ideally…we would want to wait until the death of the last person who had appeared in the census before making the details public. He continued: While that would be impractical, the 100 year milestone ensures that few will still be alive. With today's greater longevity, a shorter milestone (say, 90 years) would substantially increase the number of survivors who might object to their data being released.

Today, millions of genealogists are keen to see the 1911 census. It carried no guarantee of confidentiality for a set period and it was taken when records were normally released after 60 to 80 years. What is more, the Lord Chancellor has the power to determine that it can be released before 2012, and the Irish equivalent, which was taken by the UK Government, is already available.

Early release would generate money for the poor, cash-strapped Chancellor, so what is the reason for having to wait? Is there a vast lobby of 93-year-old people out there who are desperate for us not to know the contents of their census return—their date of birth and their parents' names, addresses and occupations? I think not. I hope that the Minister has a much better explanation for us than that.

11.4 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)

I thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for raising the 1911 census for England and Wales. The Government welcome the opportunity to have a constructive debate on a complicated issue, which is to my mind essentially a question of balancing the access interests of family and other historians who wish to consult census returns to further their research against the privacy rights accorded to citizens when they provided personal information in their census returns. I am glad that he acknowledged that balance towards the end of his comments. I stress that tonight's debate is about England and Wales, since the Scottish census is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

In recent years, many people have taken up family history for the first time and with a passion, as many key documentary sources have become available over the internet. The Government recognise that the pursuit of family history is very far from being a marginal leisure interest, as it has sometimes rather unfairly been regarded in the past. It fulfils two profound needs: the development of a sense of family, community and personal identity to provide a secure anchor for people in a sometimes rather anonymous modern world; and the satisfaction of a growing curiosity about the past. In the case of the United Kingdom, there is the additional desire on the part of family historians scattered across the globe to keep alive the link with the country from which their ancestors came.

The Government have positively encouraged family historians by providing much easier access via the internet to the many records created by Government bodies that can assist family history research. That fits in well with the wider "Modernising Government" agenda to make major public services available online, so that citizens can use those services in ways and at times that are convenient to them.

In the archival world, the national archive has made digital images of its major collection of wills available over the internet, and they are a crucial source for family historians stretching over 500 years. The archive runs an online family history consortium of Departments and other public bodies, which provides detailed guidance and signposts for those new to the subject. It also provides more than 200,000 original images about the experience of immigration into the UK since the mid-19th century, to attract new users to archives, as part of the Government's social inclusion agenda.

We are well aware that not everyone wishes to, or can afford to, install a personal computer in their homes. That is why we revived this country's libraries by providing free access to computer terminals as part of a national information network, in addition to making them more animated places offering a focus for a wide range of community activities. By the end of this year, all the UK's more than 4,000 libraries will be linked to the internet as learning and access centres. All Members will be pleased to see their libraries revived around the country.

In the last few years, there has been an explosion of interest in history, as the popularity of television programmes presented by Simon Schama, David Starkey and others indicates. Gone for ever are the days when history was the preserve of academic scholars in a few ivory-tower universities. The Government have played a full part in that transformation by increasing funding for museums, especially in the regions, and by abolishing entry charges, which has led to an increase in the number of people visiting museums. In the first year of the free access policy, which was introduced in late 2001, there were 5.3 million extra visits to museums, and last year there were an additional 5.6 million. The record is clear. There is support for libraries, museums and online services, and for those who want to understand not just the country's history but their own family histories.

When decisions are made about the provision of access to personally sensitive information, either in original documents or in digital copies of them, the interests of researchers are not the only factor to be taken into account. There is sometimes a danger of our being swept along in our enthusiasm to make more material available, without acknowledging that the individuals who supplied personal information also have important rights. Far from favouring a nanny state in which all decisions are made by a Government who know best, we wish to build a mature relationship between state and citizen that is based on trust. In building that trust, the Government need to adopt a careful and discriminating approach to the collection of personal information, and to demonstrate that they will use that information responsibly. In short, the Government believe that the right to privacy, and to the confidentiality of sensitive personal information, is every bit as important in a flourishing democratic society as the right of access to that information. The release of the 1911 census provides one example of the need to strike a reasonable balance between the access rights of some citizens and the privacy rights of others.

Mr. Carmichael

I have a straightforward question. It is clear from the figures that I gave the Minister that the balance has been struck differently in the past. What has changed?

Mr. Lammy

I shall explain that shortly, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. I can say, however, that on the last five or six occasions in the last century, the Government maintained the 100-year rule. For the 19th century, they reduced the period, but that was because there was a problem relating to pension entitlement. Individuals needed access to the census, and the Government took an interest in what was a national issue.

It is also important to note what was on the census form at that time. As the hon. Gentleman will know, census forms have become more complex and ask more searching questions than they used to. The 1911 census form asked sensitive questions for the first time. We appreciate the importance to many people of gaining access to census records as a way of starting, or continuing to pursue, their family history research. However, in the case of the 1911 census that must be weighed against the undertaking given to householders at the time in the following emphatic terms: 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 hon. Gentleman says that no 100-year rule was mentioned, but another interpretation of that confidentiality was that it should be in perpetuity. Some countries destroy their censuses after a reasonable period to ensure confidentiality; we have used the 100-year rule as an alternative. We were giving a remarkably categorical assurance in 1911. The Government believe that it must be taken very seriously indeed, especially because at the time it was generally interpreted as having no expiry date.

The hon. Gentleman has noted that the average time that elapsed between the taking of censuses in England, Wales and Scotland before 1911 and their public release was only 80 years, but there was a marked tendency for census forms in the 20th century to ask detailed questions. For example, the 1911 census introduced a question on fertility for the first time. If the average is to constitute any guide, we must be careful to compare like with like. Closer examination reveals that the hon. Gentleman's average of 80 years is heavily weighted towards 19th century censuses, which asked individuals for fewer details than later censuses. Censuses up to 1851 were made publicly available in the earlier 20th century because they often constituted the only proof of age, and therefore the only proof of entitlement to pensions, which were first provided by the state in 1908. Compared with later censuses, the 1841 and 1851 censuses asked for only basic personal information. Today, the state has a vast array of documentation relating to each citizen, and no one would seriously argue that access to the census returns is still necessary to establish proof of age.

The legislative and social context in which censuses are conducted has changed enormously since the early 20th century. Another consideration is that average life expectancy has increased considerably during the past 150 years, so the closure period needed to ensure that sensitive personal information is not released within the lifetime of most individuals has correspondingly lengthened. For those reasons, the argument based on past averages of censuses more than 100 years old is not, in the end, persuasive.

Mr. Carmichael

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous with his time. is he, then, critical of the Government of the Republic of Ireland for releasing information from the 1911 census relating to people in Northern Ireland? As I said, that information is already in the public domain. Have the Government received any complaints from people in Northern Ireland about the release of the information relating to them?

Mr. Lammy

In Northern Ireland, again, certain pension issues arose, which made that action necessary.

It is sometimes suggested that the confidentiality undertaking given in 1911 can now be set aside because most, although by no means all, the people mentioned in those returns are now dead. However, if that view prevailed, the damaging effects on future nationwide censuses could be considerable. In 1966, the then Lord Chancellor signed an instrument, under section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958, closing all decennial census records for 100 years on the grounds that the information was supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure would constitute a breach of good faith. In 1981, the confidentiality assurance on the census forms was made even more explicit, and mentioned the 100-year closure period. The form for the most recent census, in 2001, included the following unequivocal statement: The information you provide is protected by law and is treated in strict confidence. The information is only used for statistical purposes, and anyone using or disclosing Census information improperly will be liable to prosecution. Census forms will be held securely. Under the current terms of the Public Records Act 1958, the data will be treated as confidential for a period of 100 years.

The primary purpose of the census is to compile statistics about the population so that the Government can, for example, take full account of rapidly changing demographics in order to make necessary provision for public services. Filling in the census is compulsory, and those who refuse to fill the forms in may be prosecuted. However, the plain fact of the matter is that the census will not be a successful information-gathering exercise if it is not generally acceptable to the public at large. We know from experience that many members of the public are concerned about the confidentiality of a census and the uses to which the information is put. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is debate in the House about certain aspects of the 2001 census, and it is important that we encourage Members to have such debates. It is right that we protect confidentiality in striking the necessary balance.

If the Government were suddenly to reduce the closure period of 100 years for the 1911 census, seeds of doubt would inevitably be sown in the public's mind about the strength of the explicit assurance that later census returns will be closed for 100 years. No Government can afford to deprive themselves of the wealth of socio-economic data that contemporary censuses provide. The Government therefore believe that maintaining the security and confidentiality of the information that citizens supply about themselves in their census returns is of paramount importance. It is strongly in the national interest that public confidence in these confidentiality assurances be maintained.

That is the fundamental reason why the Lord Chancellor does not intend to reconsider the 100-year closure period established in 1966. Since then, successive Governments have reaffirmed the position in the undertakings printed on census forms since 1981, in the 1993 White Paper on open government and in the White Paper on the 2001 census. It is for that reason that I am unable, I am afraid, to accept the case that the hon. Gentleman has made, although I am grateful to him for bringing this issue to the House's attention this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.