asked the Taoieach if he will explain why the form of Table 13 of Economic Statistics, 1960 differed from that used in 1959 (Table 9), and the exact significance of the material now omitted.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Economic Statistics.
1.
Table 13 of Economic Statistics 1960 differs from the corresponding table published in 1959 principally in that gross domestic fixed capital formation, which in the 1959 issue was broken down into the parts—“Imported capital goods” and “Home-produced capital”—is in the 1960 issue given as a single figure. This change was due to the introduction, since the publication of the 1959 issue, of revised methods of compilation, intended to improve the reliability of estimated total expenditure on fixed capital. These revisions were taken into account in the preparation of the capital formation statistics for 1958 and earlier years published in the Irish Statistical Survey 1958. The figures given in Economic Statistics 1960 for gross domestic fixed capital formation in the years 1956 to 1958 are the same as those given as item 31 (Table A.3) of the Irish Statistical Survey 1958 and a breakdown of these figures is given in items 72 to 75 (Table A.7) of the same document. It was not possible to prepare a similar breakdown for 1959 in time for inclusion in Economic Statistics 1960 and, therefore, only a total figure is given for each of the four years 1956-59. The partial breakdown of the corresponding preliminary figure for 1958, which was given in Economic Statistics 1959, was based on the less complete compilation which had been used in preparing capital formation statistics for the 1957 and earlier Statistical Survey, so that it was possible to have it completed earlier in the year.
There is a further slight difference between the layout of Table 13 of Economic Statistics 1960 and Table 9 of Economic Statistics 1959 in that the latter shows, for 1955 and 1956, a breakdown of home-produced capital into “Private dwellings, hospitals, schools, etc.” and “Other home produced capital”. As the figures for 1959 are not yet available a similar breakdown is not given in Economic Statistics 1960, but the figures for 1956-58 are available in the Irish Statistical Survey 1958 items 73 and 74 (Table A.7).
Does that reply purport to explain the difference between the figures of £77,000,000 given in Economic Statistics, 1960, in respect of the year 1958, and £69,000,000 given in Economic Statistics, 1959, in Table 9, in respect of 1958 ?
No, I do not think so. It deals only with the particular point raised by the Deputy in his question. The explanation really is that there is no difference at all, except that the information required to break down the figures into component parts was not available in time for the publication of the brochure.
Perhaps the Taoiseach has not the figures before him but in Table 9 of the 1959 publication, the figure for "gross domestic physical capital formation" in respect of the year 1958 is given at £69,000,000. The corresponding figure in Table 13 of the 1960 publication in respect of 1958 is £77,000,000. There is a difference of £8,000,000.
The gross figures are strictly comparable.
How do you get a figure of £77,000,000 in one publication and a figure of £69,000,000 in another publication, for the same year?
I do not quite follow the Deputy.
Has the Taoiseach got the figures before him?
Yes, I have Table 13.
Table 13 speaks of "gross physical capital formation" of £77,000,000 in the year 1958 in the 1960 publication. In the 1959 publication, "gross domestic physical capital formation" in respect of the year 1958 is given as £69,000,000.
As was explained in the reply, there has been a revision of the information on which these figures are based.
I may take it that in the long reply an explanation of this discrepancy is given?
It is pointed out in the reply that a revised method of compilation was adopted this year— what the Statistics Office regard as an improved compilation.
I take it that the two Tables are not strictly comparable?
Not to that extent.