Mr. Cormac Halpin:

I will respond to the Senator's points on the census questions. The principle in how most census questions are designed is that the CSO engages with the users. As regards questions Nos. 15 and 16 on the most recent census form to which the Senator referred, the process is that the CSO appoints a census advisory group, which is a representative group of subject matter experts across the board. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the National Disability Authority, NDA, and our colleagues in IHREC were part of that census advisory group in 2016. In 2016, the group decided to appoint a sub-group to look at the disability questions in particular. There was a number of subject matter experts on that group. Like every census question, there is a balance to be struck between meeting user needs and making sure the questions are understandable and comprehensible. One cannot put overly complex questions on a census form because we know from experience that if one does so, the questions will not be well answered and, ultimately, the data will suffer. There is another tension whereby if one changes a census question too much from one census to another, one compromises the comparability of the data. These are the kind of discussions that were had at the disability sub-group the last time around.

The CSO views itself as the custodian of the census, not the owner. The census questions are owned by the users of that data. The CSO is reliant on key stakeholders and subject matter experts in, for example, the area of disability. We are guided by their needs. They are the ones that use and need the data. Our key concern in these discussions is to maintain the statistical integrity of the census and make sure the questions are as comprehensible and useful as possible to produce good quality data.

For the consultation leading into the last census, the questions were changed significantly in response to user requirements during that subgroup. The Washington Group framing of census questions was integrated into the questions to a great extent. It was not to a full extent because the users also wanted to maintain as much comparability with census 2016 as possible. That is a little bit of the tension I mentioned. Ultimately, the subgroup on disability signed off on the framing of the questions. There were changes to some of the wording of the categories and the instruction in question 16 to include issues due to old age. Those proposals were brought back to the plenary census advisory group, which approved the subgroup's recommendations. Ultimately, that was approved by Government in 2019 ahead of the census.

That is how it works. The CSO does not come into these discussions with any agenda, but tries to meet the users’ needs as much as possible subject to those constraints and other broader constraints, such as space. From a statistician’s perspective, we would love to have hundreds of questions on the census form, but we have a responsibility to the public to minimise the response burden. If there are too many questions on the form, the response rate tends to suffer. It is about trying to meet all needs and balance them to the greatest extent possible. We delivered those questions, which are a significant change. We have fully processed the census now and are ready to produce the results starting from May. We think there will be good, interesting data from that. A big benefit of the census is we can disaggregate the data down to small area level, which is neighbourhood statistics down to around 100 households, so it is down to a housing estate, townland or street. We meet the requirement for disaggregation to a great extent.

On potential changes to the questions for 2027, the same process will apply. A census advisory group will be appointed. I will not create any hostages to fortune by stating whether there will be a disability subgroup appointed. That will be the decision of the census advisory group when it meets. We anticipate the first meeting will be in June. That subgroup will contemplate the questions, if it is formed, and decide whether questions posed in 2022 are appropriate. The CSO will be reliant on guidance from the users of the data and people who rely on the data to help us frame the questions if there are to be changes. The CSO has no skin in the game other than ensuring statistical integrity and that the questions are suitable for a census. The process is driven by the users. It is unlikely that there will be a diminution in the number of disability questions. They are extremely important questions, which is reflected in the fact there is a dedicated publication coming out on disability. There are other parts of the census form where there is not a dedicated publication, which other users may have an opinion on.