Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I compliment Senator Ó Murchú on introducing this very significant legislation. I am disappointed that the Government does not see fit to support it. However, I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, who has given a very interesting analysis for the record of the context in which the debate is taking place. There seems to have been a modern view since 1961 that successive governments are not against the principle of releasing records. In my opinion they are hiding behind the old confidentiality clause that was inserted into the 1926 Act.

Unfortunately I have not had time to look back on those debates to ascertain why, in contrast with the British Administration where the 1901 and presumably all the previous censuses were not subject to any confidentiality clause which allowed the release of the 1901 and 1911 censuses as being the only ones available, the fledgling Irish Government, presumably because it was only five years in office after the foundation of the State following the signing of the treaty in 1921 acted differently. Perhaps there were all sorts of sensitivities and there may have been a general distrust among the population about big government at that time. Here we had a Government agency that was seeking information on a household and individual basis so perhaps the spirit or atmosphere at the time did not lend itself to anything other than adding a confidentiality clause.

The 1993 Act repealed the 1926 and 1946 Acts. There was a further loosening of the bonds in 1961. The records of the 1901 and 1911 censuses were deposited in the Public Record Office in 1929. They were made available as public records in 1961 following the warrant by the then Minister for Justice under the Public Records (Ireland) Act 1867 and they are now among the most frequently used records in the National Archives. The Government at that time obviously felt there was a need to change and loosen the bonds that had been very tightly bound around the 1926 Act regarding that census by responding to requests to open up the 1901 and 1911 censuses.

In 1993 Mr. Noel Dempsey, a predecessor of the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, in introducing the 100-year rule for the first time, resisted reducing it to 70 years which, as Senator Ó Murchú and others mentioned, was an initiative of the then Senator, Dr. Maurice Manning. Senator Ó Murchú is correct to point out that the 15-year period between 1911 and 1926 is the most significant in the history of Ireland, both prior to and subsequent to independence. I am sure he has already made reference to one of the aspects of this debate, the anecdotal evidence of alleged ethnic cleansing in areas of west County Cork during the War of Independence and the Civil War. The comprehensive 1911 census would have shown the religion of those who had made a return and by 1926 the suggestion that there had been ethnic cleansing of the Protestant minority in the South of Ireland could be questioned if those censuses were released. Unquestionably it was not just about the political transformation of this country, but was also about the First World War and the huge numbers of Protestants and Catholics - but predominantly Protestants - who joined the British Army at the time. Unfortunately because the building in London was bombed by the Germans in 1941, the records of Irishmen serving in the British Army in the 1914-18 War are incomplete. The release of the 1926 census would open up that statistical route so that there could be at least some closure brought to what happened to many of those whose details were in the 1911 census.

As Senator O'Keeffe said, 1926 was then, and 1993 was then; we are now living in a world of Facebook and Twitter. We are in a world of total transparency where the younger generation have no inhibitions about putting their personal details up for the world to see. Not only that, they are also happy to express all sorts of opinions for the world to see ad infinitum. Given that we are in a changed environment I strongly believe the Government should reconsider this. I am particularly pleased that the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, has been charged with a review of this area.

Reference has been made to the €5 million relating to the 1901 and 1911 censuses, which was repaid. There is a question that this would be very costly because the 1926 census has not been microfilmed. However, all the genealogical offices throughout the country have already digitised the local newspapers, mainly through FÁS schemes. They did it in my county with the Leitrim Observer and the Leitrim Guardian. It is not beyond the capacity of the Government to ensure there is not an undue charge on the Exchequer in digitising and putting on microfilm the 1926 census.