LAMAS Working Group 19-21 June 2017 Agenda Item 2.4 Implementing Act for the Monthly Unemployment Rate Denis.Leythienne@ec.europa.eu Eurostat

I. Background Importance of Monthly Unemployment Rate (MUR) data for European citizens Main strengths / weaknesses of the current publication Strengths: good timeliness (t+30/31 days in most cases) Weaknesses: no harmonization of methods. Large spread in performance (as measured by volatility / revisions) Large range of methods used due to: - Different situations: high/low correlation between ADMIN and ILO data; high/reasonable volatility of the monthly LFS - Different attitudes towards revisions Eurostat

II. Need for a EU Regulation To specify clear rights and obligations for all stakeholders - For MSs: transmitting MUR inputs/data on time (t+25/26 days) - For Eurostat: publishing MUR data according to a fixed calendar To improve quality over time - No input harmonization (different methods allowed) - BUT: quality monitoring through common criteria Eurostat

III. Main features of the proposal Legal instrument: IESS Implementing Act Transmission deadline: t+25 days (26 for ILO data?) as specified in the IESS Framework Regulation. The MUR proposal settles the case of Week- Ends. Definition of the reference month: - calendar month for ADMIN-based methods; - 'LFS reference month' for LFS-based estimates. LFS months are a set of full weeks, using the 'Thursday rule' in case of overlaps over 2 months / quarters Quality indicators and thresholds included in the regulation Data requirements: - MUR estimates published nationally; - Benchmark data, every 3 years, for quality monitoring purposes Eurostat

IV. Exchange of views Do you agree on the proposal to collect and publish at EU level the same MUR data as published nationally?   Answers Ratio Yes 25 81% No 1 3% Don't know 4 13% No Answer Eurostat

Do you agree on including the quality criteria and thresholds endorsed by LAMAS directly in the MUR implementing act?   Answers Ratio Yes 13 42% No 10 32% Don't know 7 23% No Answer 1 3% Eurostat

for quality benchmarking purposes? Do you agree on transmitting monthly LFS data (seasonally adjusted) to Eurostat, every 3 years, for quality benchmarking purposes?   Answers Ratio Yes 15 49% No 5 16% Don't know 10 32% No Answer 1 3% Eurostat

V. Quality monitoring - Carried out every 3 years; Some precisions: - Concerns the headline indicators published by Member States / Eurostat; - Results of the quality indicators to be checked against (1) absolute thresholds and (2) the results obtained for a common benchmark i.e. monthly LFS data (SA) Amendments accepted by Eurostat: - Exempt 'option 1 countries' from the 3-yearly transmission of monthly LFS data; - Redrafting Articles 7.1 and 7.3 to make clear that quality monitoring applies to the published data (i.e. headline indicators). - - 8 Eurostat

VI. Proposal LAMAS is invited to take note: Of the revised proposal for a MUR Implementing Act That a revised version, further to this LAMAS meeting, will be loaded on CIRCAbc That this revised version will be the basis for further discussions, including at DSS level Eurostat