Vol. 427 No. 7
3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the number of changes that have been made in the last ten years in the way in which the level of unemployment is calculated in terms of categories that were previously included as unemployed but which are no longer included in the register; and the impact, if any, on current unemployment statistics of each of these changes.
There has been one statistical review of the coverage of the live register in the past ten years. The review was carried out during 1991 by an expert group established under the aegis of the Central Review Committee of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. Its purpose was to enhance the value of the live register as a means of monitoring short term trends in unemployment on an objective statistical basis.
The effect of the changes recommended by the review group was to reduce the live register count by 5,200 as and from May 1992.
Persons opting for the pre-retirement allowance and credits schemes — PRETA and PRECS — have been excluded from the live register count since the introduction of the schemes in 1990 on the grounds that they make a declaration that they have retired from the labour market. The PRETA and PRECS schemes currently apply to persons aged between 55 and 65 years of age and at the end of February 1993 a total of 16,800 were availing of these schemes.
The categories of persons excluded from the live register arising from the most recent and previous reviews are explicitly shown by the Central Statistics Office in its monthly live register statement.
Is the Minister of State aware that approximately 43,000 people who previously would have been counted as unemployed are now excluded by one statistical device or another from the unemployment figure and that if the original measure of unemployment was used the level of unemployment at present would be 352,500 rather than 299,000?
The figures I have in respect of the question the Deputy asks are 16,800 and 5,200, making a total of 22,000 people.
Is the Minister aware that the number on systematic short-time working — who previously would have been included — 9,653; the number of smallholders and self-employed claiming unemployment assistance — who previously would have been included — is 16,522; the number of people on various retirement schemes is approximately 15,000 and this adds up to approximately 43,000?
The Deputy seems to be imparting knowledge rather than seeking it.
I am aware of the figures the Deputy mentions because as I said these statistics are contained in the statistics published by the Central Statistics Office. His question does not directly refer to them but asks about the review.
Does the Minister of State accept that if we measure unemployment in the way it was always measured as a proportion of the insured workforce we would now have a published unemployment rate of 28 per cent as against the figure quoted of 16 per cent? Does the Minister accept that the failure to measure unemployment against the insured workforce is a deliberate measure to make the figures appear better than they are?
I do not accept that; the review that took place was undertaken in full consultation with the Central Review Committee and is in line with all the other OECD countries. One of the reasons for the review taking place was to allow us to make comparisons with other OECD countries. I do not accept what the Deputy says.
In view of the problems presently being experienced in Aer Lingus and the likely effect this will have on unemployment levels, has the Government any plans to dispatch Deputy Derek McDowell and other Labour Party Deputies to the hangar?
Let us be serious about Question Time.
Is the Minister aware of the number of lone parents who are seeking unemployment and could he put a figure on that number? Many thousands of women in receipt of the lone parent allowance are desperately seeking work. They see themselves as unemployed although they are not on the live register. I believe the number seeking work runs to many thousands. Does the Minister have a figure for this category?
That is a very relevant question but it is worthy of a separate question, Deputy.
It is directly relevant.
I know that but particular information should be sought by a particular question.
My question relates to how the figures are compiled. The danger is that the Minister is not taking these into account in his answers.
I can only respond to the questions put down to me. Obviously the Deputy will appreciate that this is a very specific question and if she would like to table a question I will be delighted to respond to it.
