1931 & 1939
As the 1931 census was lost in a fire, is there any way that the 1939 Census be pushed forward in the same way as the 1911, so we can all find out more info (not covered by the 1920 Census act)

1911/2011
Can I make a big suggestion to share the files with other members of the family.
this will save some members shelling out twice, I have already done this.

also when it comes to the 2011 can people scan/copy their forms when they're all filled in and save that to disc, as it might save the agony waiting to 2111

saying that there may not be a census in 2021

First the 1931 Scottish census still survives only the England & Wales census was destroyed in 1942.

The 1939 was not a census but a National Registration, it is therefore not covered by the 1920 Census Act and should be released.
I have been trying to get replies from the National Archives and the Office of National Statistics since 14 December 2006 but they keep illegally ignoring my requests and appeals.
The Information Commissioner's Office keeps insisting I give them more time for an Internal Review.
My feeling is they are simply stalling for time in the hope I go away.

Apart from the numerous letters, emails and phone calls requesting the information and lodging appeals for refusal of the information I have also contacted the Information Commissioner on at least two occasions which I add below.

First request for information
addresses snipped

Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act


Dear Sir,
I am writing to obtain the details of the residents of 60 Holly Walk, Leamington Spa from the 1939 National Registration.
Yours sincerely

Request for an Internal Revue
addresses snipped

Date 17 January 2007


Re Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act


Dear Sir/Madam,
I emailed info@statistics.gov.uk with a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act from the 1939 National Registration on the 14/12/2006 at 08.00.
The details required were details of the residents of 60 Holly Walk, Leamington Spa from the 1939 National Registration.
I have not received any notification that my request was being dealt with, in spite of phoning to find out if my request had been received.
It is now 20 working days since the 14/12/2006 and I have still not received the information requested or any response that my request is being dealt with.
I again phoned today and was again told the person responsible was not in the office but they would be contacted.

I am therefore appealing against this situation and ask that my request is considered under an internal review
Yours sincerely




First appeal
addresses snipped

26 October 2007


Freedom of Information Request FO100624/Etchells


Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to ask the Information Commissioner to investigate the refusal to allow my request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

I am not arguing for a general release of the 1939 Registration just specific details for a specific address.
I asked for information regarding the occupants of 60 Holly Walk, Leamington Spa from the 1939 National Registration.

This information has been refused to me.
The grounds for refusal being that the 1939 National Registration was a census and therefore covered by the 1920 Census Act and release of information would constitute a breach of section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act.
I would submit that the National Registration Act, 1939 which cover the National Registration is not a Census Act and therefore is not covered by the 1920 Census Act.
This is made clear by the statement in the 1939 Act-
”(2) The said register shall be called the National Register and is hereafter in this Act referred to as “ the Register.”

May I point out that blanket exemptions are supposed to be excluded under the Freedom of Information Act.
The White Paper - Your Right to Know The Government's proposals for a
Freedom of Information Act states -
Chapter 3.8
“3.8 We believe the 15 exemptions in the Code of Practice can be substantially reduced. Indeed, we do not propose that the Act should contain exempt categories at all, but rather that disclosure should be assessed on a "contents basis", records being disclosed in a partial form with any necessary deletions, rather than being completely withheld. This ensures that the harm test is sensibly and realistically applied to key areas. We have provisionally identified seven "specified interests" in place of the Code's exemptions.”

A statement such as -
“The Census Act 1920 prohibits the release of personal census information without lawful authority… ” -shows that due consideration has not been given to my request but a blanket exclusion applied and is certainly against the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act.
It also shows that the wrong legislation has been looked at when making a decision whether to allow my access to the information requested or not.

The above White Paper also contains a suggestion that decisions should be dependant on whether substantial harm be caused by the release of the information rather than the simple harm test previously employed.

Chapter 3
“3.7 We believe the test to determine whether disclosure is to be refused should normally be set in specific and demanding terms. We therefore propose to move in most areas from a simple harm test to a substantial harm test, namely will the disclosure of this information cause substantial harm?”

I would further point out the Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice on the Management of Records Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
http://www.foi.gov.uk/reference/imprep/codemanrec.htm#part4
states
Foreword General Section 10.
“2. in relation to most exempt information, the information must nonetheless be disclosed unless the public interest in maintaining the exemption in question outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

I would submit that the public interest in maintaining the exemption in question in no way outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

I submit that section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the 1939 Registration Act.

The government frequently state that allowing early access to the census would constitute a breach of promise and would damage the public’s confidence in the government.
I would however point out that to claim that no record was going to be covered by a blanket exclusion from the Freedom of Information Act (see above) then impose a blanket exclusion on National Registration Act 1939 material by calling it a census totally destroys any confidence the public have that the government will ever keep any promise they ever make.

There no sensitive facts on the 1939 National Registration as the particulars asked were-
1. Names.
2. Sex.
3. Age.
4. Occupation, profession, trade or employment.
5. Residence.
6. Condition as to marriage.
7. Membership of Naval, Military or Air Force Reserves or Auxiliary Forces or of Civil Defence Services or Reserves.

If however any of the above were deemed sensitive information they could easily be redacted as sensitive information is with the 1911 census.
I would submit that the public interest in maintaining the exemption in question in no way outweighs the public interest in disclosure as shown by the current petitions with regards to the release of census information on the web site at
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/censusconfid/ a petition against the release of information before 100 years has expired and
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/CensusInfoFreed...censusinfofreed a petition for the release of information before 100 years has expired.
These petitions had the following public support at the deadline for closure 23,605 people had signed in favour of the release of information as opposed to only 119 against the release of information.
I would therefore suggest that this shows that far from the release of census information being against the public interest the release of the information is in tune with the public interest.
Yours faithfully



Second appeal
addresses snipped

16 November 2007


Freedom of Information Request FO100624/Etchells

Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your response to my request to investigate the refusal to allow my request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.
Unfortunately it seems you are in error in thinking I have not already asked for an internal review.
I sent my initial request for information off on 14 December 2006
This was ignored in spite of many phone calls and assurances it was being dealt with.
I sent my appeal for an internal review off on 17 January 2007

I would therefore ask you to reconsider your decision not to investigate my appeal
Yours faithfully,


Due to the way the system works the Information Commissioner is reluctant to pursue the matter until I have received a reply refusing my appeal for an Internal Revue. I am of the opinion that by refusing to answer or acknowledge my correspondence is tantamount to refusing my appeal therefore the Information Commissioner is duty bound to make a judgement.
Cheers
Guy

Update on my request for FoI on the 1939 National Registration.

I received an email from the Office for National Statistics Freedom of Information team today; they have passed the buck to the National Health Service Information Centre.
This is due to the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 which devolved responsibility of the 1939 National Registration to the National Health Service Central Registrar.
I have now got a contact name there and can plug away at them until I get a result.
Cheers
Guy