An argument could be made that the live register is a redundant means of measuring unemployment and a survey is currently being undertaken on that matter. In 1986, the gap between the live register and the quarterly national household survey was only 5,000 but grew to 90,000 in 1996.
It has been baldly stated in recent years that the live register is not a measure of unemployment and that the quarterly national household survey, which has been in existence since 1997, is the new measure of unemployment as it is a rolling, week to week indicator in which people describe their own status. To that extent, the live register could be said to be redundant as a measure of unemployment. However, the live register includes many different groups of people who, for various reasons, do not describe themselves as being unemployed and, for that reason, it would be useful to retain it. Its title is another matter and I will listen to any suggestions the Deputy may have in that regard.
Some part-time and occasional workers sign on when they are not employed. As a result of the equality legislation introduced in the mid 1980s, the number of women entitled to sign on increased without any change occurring in their labour force status. The introduction of signing on as an eligibility requirement for subsequent participation in employment or training schemes, changes in the rules and practices in regard to means testing, changes in the level of unemployment assistance and benefit and arrangements for the splitting of entitlements between spouses are some of the reasons, with which the Deputy will be familiar, which throw up these differences. The title of the live register is a debatable issue but its content is a useful body of data.