asked the Taoiseach the significance of the term "head of household" used on the current census forms and to publicly advise persons filling up the form of appropriate ways in which the form can be completed without accepting such archaic concepts and terminology.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Taking of Census.
1.
The census is based on the household form and it is necessary to have one person in each household responsible for the completion of the form. No specific direction is given as to who this person, termed "head of household", should be—this is a matter which is left entirely to each household to decide. The term is used solely for the purposes of the census and has no deeper significance.
Is it not the case that the assumption on the census form is that the head of the household is a male?
No.
Is it not the case that other persons are required to state their relationship to the head of the household in terms that make it quite clear that a male is the head of a household? For example, the word "wife" is used but "husband" is not.
This is so, but that has been the term used in a number of previous censuses. It was used as recently as 1977 in the pilot census and the pattern has not been changed down through the years.
(Interruptions.)
Does it not show a great insensitivity to continue using the term at this stage when the purpose of the question could be equally well served by asking the name of the principal wage or income earner in the household?
That would be even more ambiguous because in some households there is unfortunately no earner as such. That would be even more complicated.
Would the Minister explain why there is a need for one person to be responsible for filling up the census form? Is this person liable for prosecution if the census form is not filled up?
There is a requirement that somebody in the household, we take it, the head of the household, is responsible for completing the census form. This is one of those definitions that we have used in a number of censuses and there has been no trouble. I cannot understand why the Deputy is getting so excited about it.
Question No. 2.
Will the Minister accept that because we have had something for donkey's years that is no reason to continue to have it? It is an insult to the people involved.
(Interruptions.)
Question No. 2.
We now have garages as well as blacksmiths.
2.
asked the Taoiseach (a) the number of persons temporarily engaged as census enumerators for the forthcoming census; (b) the number of these who had been previously registered as unemployed.
There are 3,180 persons engaged as temporary part-time enumerators on the 1979 census. Of this total 196 were registered at their local employment office at the time of their application.
Does the Minister regard that as a satisfactory response to the unemployment problem considering that here the Government had an opportunity to hand out over 3,000 jobs, even though they are only temporary? It has now transpired that only about 6 per cent of the people employed were registered as unemployed.
The Deputy asked if I though it was a poor response.
Would the Minister think it a suitable response——
No.
—— in view of the fact that when the 1976 census was postponed we were accused of not playing our part in the job creation programme?
I confess that I am disappointed with the number of unemployed people who were taken on to work on the census.
Will the Minister assure me that anybody who has another job has not been taken on as a temporary part-time enumerator?
I cannot assure the Deputy of that.
Could the Minister tell the House anything about the method by which these 3,000 people were recruited?
This was handled by the Statistics Office. Responsibility for recruitment was handed to them in order to keep ourselves clear of the allegation of political jobbery.
I have not made that allegation, but I will now——
I accept that allegations have not been made. In our efforts to make sure that that charge could not be made, I am in here apologising for the fact that not enough people registered as unemployed have been taken on.
I want to make it clear that I am not making any allegations because I have not the material to make them. Is the Minister telling the House that there is something unusual about allowing the Statistics Office to employ their own staff?
No.
Surely that is the normal practice. Is the Minister saying that otherwise Deputies in his party could put people into these jobs? That was not the case when we were in government.
I agree with the Deputy that there is nothing unusual about the format followed on this occasion. One of the factors to be taken into consideration was that in the recruitment of the enumerators the procedures involved preferential treatment for unemployed or otherwise needy persons.
Would the Minister not then be in a position to assure the House that his positive instructions, which he had no reason to suppose had not been followed, were that people who already had jobs were not to be offered jobs as part-time enumerators?
That was not a positive instruction. We have to ensure that the census is carried out in a comprehensive and responsible manner. The difference between us and the Opposition is that we undertook to carry out a census. We want to make sure it is done properly.
Is the Minister seriously suggesting that, in the whole of this country, there are not 3,000 people who are not presently employed available with the necessary competence to do this job of distributing and collecting forms? Is he satisfied that the requirement to give preference to the unemployed was met when so few unemployed were in fact used for this purpose? Is he suggesting that out of 100,000 only 200 have the necessary minimal competence to hand out forms and collect them?
I am not suggesting that, and the Deputy should not ascribe that sort of view to me.
What is the Minister suggesting? What happened? What went wrong?
One of the problems is that for the rural census, which covers about 50 per cent of the enumerators, one of the provisions spelled out is that the person must have a full current driving licence and the use of a motor vehicle to get around in the rural areas. That covers about 50 per cent of the census. In a way that eliminates a certain number of people who are unemployed and would not have the facility for doing that. That is one of the factors entering into it.
Must rural dole drawers have cars. If I put down a separate question next week, or immediately, asking the Minister if the Central Statistics Office can disclose how many of these persons already have other employment, will he be able to answer that question?
If the Deputy puts down a question I will endeavour to answer it.