Sir, - In his Saturday column (July 20th), Garret FitzGerald argues that Live Register figures on unemployment are "dangerously misleading" and "should never be used as a means of assessing either the level or trend of unemployment". He argues that the most reliable unemployment data come from the Labour Force Survey (which is carried out by the Central Statistics Office). However, it is arguable that Dr FitzGerald's piece is itself - "dangerously misleading".
He points out that there is a considerable divergence between the Irish Live Register and Labour Force figures for unemployment. Similar, and even greater, discrepancies exist in other EU countries. He correctly points out that administrative changes can affect the level of unemployment shown by the Live Register; however, he does not refer to the fact that several recent changes have, reduced the level of Live Register unemployment, e.g. the transfer of persons in receipt of pre retirement allowance from the Live Register.
He also incorrectly claims that the Live Register includes several categories which "are legally entitled to inclusion, even though most in these categories are not seeking work". In fact (with the exception of those signing for "credits") persons must be available for and genuinely seeking employment in order to be legally on the register.
Dr FitzGerald ignores the limitations of the Labour Force measures of unemployment. These limitations are particularly apparent in relation to women. The 1995 Labour Force Survey showed female unemployment
(on a principal economic status - PES) basis at only 48,000, compared to 97,000 women on the Live Register at the same time.
However. this discrepancy is not because the Live Register overstates women's unemployment, but rather because the PES data - which focus on a person's status rather than behaviour - understates the level of female unemployment. Many married women, when asked their usual situation with regard to employment, opt for the "home duties" response - even though many are seeking paid employment. In fact, created jobs are being taken by women moving from so called "inactivity" directly into employment.
In summary, Dr FitzGerald overstates the case against the Live Register while ignoring the flaws in the Labour Force data.
The register provides valuable information about unemployment and should be seen as complementary to, rather than in competition with, the Labour Force Survey. Criticism of its figures cannot hide the fact that unemployment and, in particular, long term employment (however measured), remains unacceptably high.
It is important that we should debate the meaning of and necessary responses to unemployment. To do so, we need more detailed study of the paths into and out of unemployment, and practical measures to create employment and to ensure that new jobs go to those out of work.
Rather than trying to present the Labour Force Survey as some objective measure, it would be preferable to follow the approach of the European Commission in its Employment in Europe report for 1994. The commission argued: "There is no single set of figures which provides an unambiguous measure of the scale of unemployment. This is partly because there are different ways of defining Unemployment, partly because unemployment itself is not a precise concept". Yours, etc.,
Lower Hatch Street,
Dublin 2.