Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Oct 1996

Vol. 470 No. 2

Written Answers. - Unemployment Figures.

Bertie Ahern

Ceist:

29 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the findings of the Central Statistics Office regarding the causes of the discrepancy between the live register measure of unemployment and the labour force survey measure. [17282/96]

Joe Walsh

Ceist:

30 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Taoiseach the exact sequence of events which led to the carrying out of the recent Central Statistics Office study into the differences between the labour force survey and the live register; the initial proposer of the study; the final cost of the study; and the source of such finance. [18555/96]

Joe Walsh

Ceist:

31 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Taoiseach if he will provide a comprehensive assessment of the impact, if any, of the analysis of part-time work on differences between the labour force survey and the live register; and if he will address the problems caused by the labour force definition which accepts one hour per week as representing employment. [18556/96]

The Taoiseach

I propose to take Questions Nos. 29, 30 and 31 together.

The preliminary results of the 1995 labour force survey, published by the CSO in October 1995, generated considerable public debate on the growing divergence between the LFS estimates of unemployment and the live register. The Government established an interdepartmental strategy group on employment and unemployment and asked it, inter alia, to examine the reasons for this growing divergence, including such further analysis as might be necessary. The group invited the CSO to provide input to its discussions on how the divergence could be most effectively analysed. The group supported a CSO proposal to survey a sample of persons on the live register as part of the April 1996 labour force survey as a statistical quality check of the unemployment indicators. The Department of Social Welfare co-operated fully with the study by providing a computer file covering the bulk of the live register from which a 1 per cent sample was selected by the CSO.

The additional costs of the study were met out of the office's existing budget allocation for 1996. The principal costs incurred in the completion of the study amounted to about £30,000 in field costs for data collection and about £20,000 for staff input within the CSO. The CSO published the results of the study on Wednesday, 18 September.

The study examined, more directly than before, the reasons for the growing divergence between the two measures. It was purely a statistical exercise. The names/addresses of those selected and their LFS responses are known only to the CSO; they are protected from disclosure under the 1993 Statistics Act which guarantees anonymity and confidentiality.

A total of 2,672 persons was selected from the live register for inclusion in the study. LFS details were collected in respect of all persons usually resident in 2,414 of these selected households.

When the names recorded in the LFS were compared by the CSO with the sample of registrants, it was found that, in 679 of the 2,414 addresses surveyed, the person on the live register was not listed as a usual resident at that address. These 679 addresses were excluded from subsequent analyses and no specific conclusions about them can be drawn from the study.

The main findings of the study concern the labour force status of the remaining sample of claimants for whom LFS information was available.

Using the principal economic status classification in which people describe their own situation the study found that: almost 44 per cent of the sample of persons on the live register did not describe their status as unemployed in the LFS; just under 4 per cent described themselves as retired and a similar percentage as students.

Using the ILO economic activity classification, which takes account of job-searching and availability for work, the study found that: just under 50 per cent of the sample were classified as unemployed; 11 per cent had full-time jobs; 10 per cent were working part-time; almost 5 per cent were marginally attached to the labour force. This category includes discouraged workers and those passively rather than actively seeking work; almost 25 per cent were classified as "Others not economically active", with most of these indicating that they were neither looking for nor wanted work. Persons engaged in part-time work of a casual nature and who are available for and actively seeking work may claim UA/UB. Such claimants are included in the live register while, in the LFS they are likely to report their status as "at work" under the principal economic status definition. Under the ILO definition, such claimants would be regarded as in employment.

Under the ILO approach to labour force analysis, a person is classified as in employment if he/she worked for one hour or more for payment or profit in the week before the survey. The published 1995 LFS report shows that the application of a higher threshold than the international standard of one hour recommended by the ILO would have had little or no impact on the estimates. In 1995, fewer than 16,000 of the total of 152,000 persons in part-time employment usually worked for less than ten hours per week.

The CSO's annual labour force survey report already addresses the need to provide detailed analysis of part-time working. Among the most relevant analyses is Table 37, which classifies full-time and part-time jobs by the number of usual hours worked. In 1995, this table showed that the average usual hours of work for part-time workers was almost 19 hours per week.

Returning to the divergence between the labour force survey and live register, the CSO study confirmed that many persons who are not statistically classified as unemployed in the LFS are included in the live register total. Conversely, taking account of the size of the gap between the LFS and live register sources, the results also indicate that there are unemployed persons, according to the LFS definitions, who are not on the live register.

Taken overall, the study shows that the most consistent estimates of unemployment are those derived from the LFS. From the middle of 1997 onwards, this survey will be conducted by the CSO on a quarterly basis.