1 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of households that failed or refused to complete and return the census forms in respect of the recent census; if an estimate of the numbers in these households was included in the preliminary figures published in July 2006; the action being taken in respect of households that refused to return forms; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35111/06]

The number of households which failed or refused to complete a census form in the recent census, though not precisely known at this stage, is believed to be relatively small.

The Central Statistics Office employed a field force comprising 40 regional supervisors, 400 field supervisors and 4,400 enumerators to carry out the census field operation. The 4,400 enumerators visited approximately 1.8 million private residences and communal establishments during the course of a nine-week field campaign. They delivered blank questionnaires to 1.5 million dwellings which were expected to be occupied on census night, 23 April 2006. Of the remaining 300,000 residences, 275,000 were vacant at the time of the census while in the remaining 25,000 cases the household was either enumerated elsewhere or temporarily absent from the State.

The vast majority of the population are very supportive of the census and understand the value which the results have in a rapidly changing society. In a small number of cases householders may have initially refused to complete their census forms. However, through the intervention of the field supervisors, and in some cases regional supervisors, it was possible to persuade the majority of these householders to comply. The number of households that refused outright to co-operate with the census was less than 20. The CSO will consult the Office of the Chief State Solicitor with a view to pursuing cases through the courts.

Despite the tenacity of the enumerators in making contact with householders during the course of the nine-week field campaign a number of householders may have evaded contact. Operating under strict guidelines, the enumerators were instructed to impute basic demographic information such as age, sex and nationality for the occupants of these households. The details were filled in by the enumerators on census forms with the word "IMPUTE" entered in the county of birth portion of the form to distinguish the census form as one which was constructed. When all of the census forms are processed it will be possible to derive an exact figure for the extent of this category. However, preliminary indications are that the number of persons involved is of the order of 6,000. The relevant population was included in the data published in the preliminary census report last July.

I commend the quality of the work done by the CSO. The first thing that occurs to me about the Minister of State's reply is to compare it with the response of the Minister for Finance earlier on the question of the electoral register. The Minister of State said there were 440 enumerators and a certain number of supervisors and others.

There were 400 field supervisors and 4,400 enumerators.

If almost 5,000 are required to carry out the census it is probably not surprising we have made such a botched job of the electoral register, on which 1,500 people were employed to do essentially the same job in a shorter period. Will the Minister for Finance, who is still in the House, take that on board? I do not expect him——

We want to have an orderly Question Time. This is Question Time for the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach and to address remarks to another Minister in the House is moving away totally from that.

I am very sorry a Cheann Comhairle. I did not mean to refer to the presence of the Minister for Finance. Let it be deleted from the record. However, if he is listening outside, he might take——

I ask the Deputy to stay within the Department addressed in the questions. I accept the reference to the census, but not to the electoral register.

It is a constructive point and purely intended as such. We need to take urgent action on the matter and the answer provided by the Minister of State bears out statistically the truth of that.

In respect of the one sixth of houses in the jurisdiction that are not habitually occupied, what rule of thumb did the CSO apply? We had some exchanges previously on the issue of the shortfall — where enumerators returned time after time to houses and still failed to get people to comply — and the Minister asked the senior statistician to write to me on it. He made the point that they were able to persuade the majority of those of the need to comply. However, in the case of those who did not comply, for whatever reason, have any prosecutions been initiated?

The letter I received states that in a small number of cases instructions were issued to field staff to provide direct estimates of the age, sex and nationality of individuals whom they knew to be present, but who went out of their way to avoid enumeration. Is this saying that when enumerators visited a house or an apartment block, they were asked to make a stab at the number of persons they believed to be resident there and that as a result a guesstimate was made of the number of people who sought to evade compliance? Is that guesstimate included in the figures from the CSO? In respect of those who were not persuaded to comply, have prosecutions been or will they be initiated?

With the Chair's permission I will deal with the question raised by Deputy Rabbitte with regard to a comparison between the census work and the work now being carried out on the electoral register. The Labour Party has proposed to legislate for using information gathered in the census to update the electoral register. This would be a fundamental breach of trust by the State. I explained before that the seal of confidentiality under which census data is collected is a binding contract between the State and the citizen. An attempt to undermine that trust, as suggested by the Labour Party, could undermine the compilation of the census, not just now but in years to come. People must be assured that their right of privacy will not be legislated away after the event. Not only is the proposal unethical, it is not even sensible. Tourists or temporary workers staying in Ireland on the night of the census would find themselves on the Irish electoral register. There are serious issues with regard to the confidential nature of the census exercise as compared to the work of compiling the electoral register. My colleague, the Minister for Finance, has said there are over 1,500 field workers involved in that process. I do not wish to reopen that debate, but it is important for me to answer the question.

With regard to the figure of 6,000 to which I referred, the answer is yes, the enumerators were asked to impute the figures in those cases. Having returned time after time it was their duty to try to establish, perhaps from neighbours or other channels, figures for who and how many were there. The figure of 6,000 in the initial figures has been included in the overall figure derived from the work of the census.

With regard to legal action, the number of households that refused outright to co-operate — despite the fact the information provided is confidential, some people have a problem co-operating and refuse to do so for their own reasons — is very small. I referred to a figure of approximately 20, but the number of households that refused outright to co-operate with the census operation was less than 20. As a refusal to respond to the census is an offence under the Statistics Act 1993, the CSO will consult with the Office of the Chief State Solicitor with a view to pursuing these cases through the courts. That process is at an initial stage and no prosecutions have yet been made. The issue will be followed up and those who refused to comply will be pursued legally. Fines were set as high as £20,000 in the original Act and can now go to €25,000 on conviction.