Doorstepping gets vital statistics

WHICH is more effective, a 20-minute conversation on a doorstep or the weekly question at a labour exchange hatch? According to the Central Statistics Office, the doorstep approach is a better gauge of real unemployment. And the CSO's labour force survey, based on this information, is a more accurate picture of unemployment than the live register.

At yesterday's press conference, the statisticians were accused of having more than numbers to crunch. Didn't this make the Government look good, as it reduced the figure for unemployment? Why produce this report now, just when the Government partners would be starting to tease out spending for next year's Budget?

Nobody mentioned the word "sponger" and the CSO director, Mr Donal Garvey, said he had been unhappy with the headlines that his report had generated in the last week.

The report had been an exercise in good statistics, Mr Garvey argued, in sorting out the anomaly of 86,000 between the number of people claiming dole and those who told the labour force survey that they were unemployed.

But what about the shame factor, someone asked, the fact that someone was more likely to claim they had a job if they were asked on their doorstep? No, it wasn't that simple, Mr Garvey said. There was no single question, but rather a series of questions on whether the person had worked last week, and if so, for whom.

Would this report forever compromise the CSO, branding its door-to-door surveyors as whistle blowers who would pass the information on to a Big Brother inspector.

Mr Garvey said the CSO was bound by confidentiality. The report was covered by the 1993 Statistics Act, guaranteeing anonymity and confidentiality.

"We actually have a very good record of explaining to people the role of the CSO. We've never been involved in any controversy or any breach of confidentiality."

But, he agreed, "statistics don't exist in isolation. Statistics are there to inform policy. Generally people listen to the CSO and realise we don't have any axe to grind and no position to defend".

It was his office's function, he said, "to put together a consistent and coherent set of figures". And it was clear he believed that mission had been accomplished. What the politicians, pundits and representative groups decided to do with the figures after that was up to them.