Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The 1911 census was released earlier , which I accept was within a different legal framework at that point.

It did not have any significant impact on the future collection of census data. People did not refuse to fill in the forms because the 1911 census records were released early. The roof did not fall in. I have used census records for a variety of reasons, as has everyone else here. The records are a very valuable source of information and are incredibly useful in the context of planning for the future, in terms of the likely demand for schools, houses and so forth. We understand that the data is statistical in nature but of all of the records that are kept, the census records are unique. I did not realise that many European countries have destroyed old census records.

It would be great if we could go back to 1922 and get our hands on those who put a match to the public records office, with so little regard for the importance of that resource. That was a terrible act of vandalism for which we are still paying a price. The data from the 1901 and 1911 census became even more important because we did not have the 19th century records and I can understand why there was a demand for that data to be released early. Indeed, that is part of the reason why things like the records of the General Register Office, GRO, have a higher premium here than they have in other countries which still have their 19th century records. Usually the data on births, marriages and deaths would not be one's first port of call; one would go to the census records. That is all the more reason for making such data immediately available. People expect to find records in one location but we have quite a fragmented range of records but together they are a wonderful resource. We must consider ways to provide an easier route to that data for researchers.

I completely accept that the witnesses have their point of view on this but I have a completely different view of it. I believe the 100 year rule is wrong - it is too long. I do not believe that a second change compromises the other elements of the records that are kept. Records on inflation, GDP, GNP and so forth are released almost as soon as they become available. We do not hold onto that data and then release it after 100 years. In that sense, one is not comparing like with like. The 100 year limit is as arbitrary as 90 years. As a compromise, redacting the names of people who are still alive is one possibility. I must disagree with the witnesses on that point because the historical value of these records, in addition to their genealogical value, given the era that we are in, sets them apart. People are quite able to differentiate between the different sets of records that are collected for different functions. We will see if there is a willingness to change the law. It is referred to in the programme for Government and is something that I would welcome.