RIght, but is the fact that 100,000 of those 1.3% are actually working a significant distortion of the figures?

Or to ask bluntly, 1.3% = how many men?

No, if you don't count the unavailable that's the definition of "active population" (which includes unemployed) and which is of course unreliable as discussed many times here.

I still see no reason not to stick with the real population numbers.