Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

My first set of questions are directed to the officials from the GRO. When will the first set of historic records be made available online? Those who are interested in this information will be aware of the changes applicable from 2000 onwards and the ongoing project in Roscommon. I welcome that the indexes will be available on the irishgenealogy.iewebsite in the near future. I acknowledge these are already available through other sources such as the Church of Latter Day Saints and roots.ie. However, access to the records is key and has been described as most genealogists as the game-changer.
The committee met prior to Christmas with four other groups on this issue. During that meeting it was stated that four sets of records are critical, namely, church, civil registration, land and census records. I note that one of the witnesses stated that birth records from 1864 onwards have been fully digitised, that while work on the marriage records is somewhat behind it is ongoing and that work on the death records is at this stage indeterminate. Is the plan to not release any of the records until all are available or will what is available be released in an incremental way? Also, by what Department will this be done?
We are all aware of what is happening in this regard in Northern Ireland. It would be nice if, as will happen in the North in the near future, our records were available online soon. We would like to see genealogy developed on an all-Ireland basis. Release of the records here is important from that point of view. It is essential to reinforce people's dissatisfaction in regard to the location of the research rooms, although I note this accommodation was selected by the Office of Public Works. The history in regard to this has been very difficult in that the Lombard Street office was very unsatisfactory. This was followed by a very satisfactory outcome in terms of the move to the Irish Life Mall, which is a good facility.

It was a very good facility. The idea was that there would be computers on each desk - even the desks were the type one would expect to see - but now it seems to have gone very far backwards. Is the office receiving complaints as I have certainly heard complaints not just about the location, which is not visually attractive or easy to find, but also about inadequacies in electrical sockets and toilets, which have been raised here before? For many people it is the first port of call in seeking records, especially if they are visitors, so it would be wrong of us not to reinforce the opinion that there is dissatisfaction in that respect.

I have other questions for the CSO, personnel. The 1911 census work was produced well in advance of the 100 year anniversary, for example. There is a big gap between the 1911 and 1926 censuses because of reasons relating to the era, but it is still the first census that was taken since the foundation of the State. It is almost regarded as historically more important from that perspective; it is also of historical importance because of the era we are entering into, and that is not just because of its genealogical value. There is a value in multiple contexts.

There are a variety of arrangements in different parts of the world. The United States, for example, releases information after approximately 50 years, and that does not seem to cause problems, although the same issue of confidentiality applies. In the UK there is a different arrangement with the 1911 census and some material was redacted. It is in the programme for Government to open the 1926 census at an earlier point but we have heard from earlier delegations that there is resistance from the CSO in that regard. What is that point of resistance? I have spoke to some fairly elderly people, including my 91-year-old mother, about the confidentiality issue, and the very opposite of the opinions that have been put forward came back to me. It would be useful to have people who are still alive to flesh out some of the material in the 1926 census, which would primarily be of interest to individuals. Are we reading the issue wrong or misinterpreting the idea that there is resistance from the CSO with regard to an early release of information? That issue came up repeatedly when we had hearings before Christmas.