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.

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.

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.

Question No. 2.

We now have garages as well as blacksmiths.

2.