I welcome the Minister, Deputy Burton, and her officials to this meeting to discuss the 2011 Revised Estimates, Vote 38. A proposed timetable for the meeting has been circulated. It will allow for an opening statement by the Minister after which we will take questions on each subhead. We aim to conclude at approximately 4 p.m. and if there is time we will have some general questions on the overall Estimate, but we will try to stick to each subhead in order to progress through it in a speedy manner. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Vote 38 - Department of Social Protection (Revised)
I thank the select committee for the invitation to appear here to consider the Department's Estimates for 2011. I very much look forward to working constructively with the committee in the coming years to ensure that my Department meets its primary goal of promoting active participation in society through the provision of income supports and employment service.
I wish to outline the background to the Revised Estimates Volume in 2011. Following budget 2011, passed in December 2010, a 2011 Revised Estimates Volume for my Department was prepared and was laid before Dáil Éireann last February. Owing to the impending general election, those Estimates were not referred to Dáil select committees for consideration, as would normally be the case, and were not voted by the Dáil prior to its dissolution. Therefore, the February 2011 Estimates have no legal force and do not provide a basis for public expenditure in 2011.
The Revised Estimate for 2011 now before the committee incorporates the expenditure and social insurance fund income changes arising on foot of the jobs initiative announced in May. These changes include: the adjustment required following the announcement of the new internship scheme, Job Bridge; the adjustments required following the transfer of the social inclusion division to my Department; and some other minor technical and administrative adjustments.
The Estimate also includes provision relating to the transfer of the employment and integration programmes of FÁS into my Department. The merger of my Department with the relevant elements of FÁS and the community welfare service is already under way and is a key element of the new programme for Government. Activation will be the primary focus of the new organisation which will now provide not only income support, but also help customers, on a case management basis, to reduce their dependence on that support. A major theme of the IMF programme defined by Mr. Chopra and his colleagues is that people should not be on social welfare forever but should be helped to get back to being active in employment, education or training.
I will be briefing the committee next week about my priorities for my Department. In addition to the core commitment of attaining financial stability, the programme for Government contains a wide range of commitments relevant to my Department, including 20 that fall primarily to my Department to implement. Implementation of these commitments is under way and I wish to take the opportunity today to highlight a number of these key commitments.
First, I have established an advisory group on tax and social welfare. The main rationale for the establishment of the group is to harness expert opinion and experience to address a number of specific issues around the operation and interaction of the tax and social protection systems, to recommend cost-effective solutions as to how employment disincentives can be improved and better poverty outcomes achieved, and to identify the specific practical institutional and administrative improvements to their operation. I suppose the slogan could be "Work should always pay", because people should not end up in a cul-de-sac on social welfare and should be strongly encouraged into work.
Second, we take a zero tolerance approach to welfare fraud and will undertake a major anti-fraud enforcement drive to tackle this problem. As well as more regular face-to-face interviews with an integrated employment and entitlements service for those of working age, other additional measures will be undertaken using the latest available technology and better sharing of data across Departments and agencies.
The extent and the scope of social protection spending is such that the income and support services operated by my Department impact on the lives of almost every person in the State. We operate in excess of 60 schemes and services and the needs and requirements of individual claimants can vary dramatically. The following figures give some indication of the scale of the work of the Department. In 2010, we processed 2 million claims and made more than 84.5 million payment transactions. In excess of 6.5 million telephone calls were received in headquarter sections and almost 935,000 control reviews were conducted by the Department in 2010. For those new to the committee, "control" means trying to cut down on fraud or prevent it from happening in the first place. In 2011, an average of almost 1.4 million people will receive a social welfare payment each week. When qualified adults and qualified children are included, a total of more than 2 million people will benefit from weekly payments. In addition, child benefit payments will reach nearly 600,000 families, with nearly 1.12 million children, every month.
Before we get into the detail of the expenditure figures for my Department, I would like to highlight the following overall expenditure figures. Total spending on social protection is estimated to decrease by €730 million in 2011, bringing overall expenditure to more than €20.6 billion. To put that in context, as a country, we collect at present approximately €33 billion from all sources of taxation, so if one was comparing tax receipts with social welfare expenditures, it is clear social welfare counts for a very high proportion of public spending. Just over €9 billion - 4.2% less than in 2010 - will be spent on social insurance schemes, including their administration, while close to €11.6 billion - 2.8% less than in 2010 - will be expended on social assistance schemes and services.
The single biggest factor is the continuing financial impact of the continuing high level of the live register. Expenditure on jobseeker's benefit and allowance is estimated at €3.67 billion, or almost €420 million less than in 2010. Some statistical information on the live register has been circulated for the information of the members along with a copy of this statement. When the previous Government made its budget plans last year, it planned for 40,000 fewer people a month on average on the live register, so this is one area where the expenditure pressures are impacting on the Department. Overall, a little over 2.9% of all expenditure is accounted for by administration. The Department directly employs some 5,150 people in just under 4,900 posts at present. These totals will rise by almost 2,000 when staff in the HSE's community welfare service and staff in the FÁS employment service transfer into the Department later this year and during next year.
The expenditure of my Department, including associated administration costs, can be broadly divided into five main areas. I will provide a brief overview of this expenditure. The support for children and families will account for 11.8% of expenditure, or nearly €3.07 billion, of which €2.07 billion will be on child benefit. It is estimated that nearly €669 million will be spent on the qualified child increase, while €199 million will go on family income supplement, FIS. A wide range of supports for people of working age accounts for over 54.7% of overall expenditure, or nearly €11.291 billion. Jobseeker's allowance and jobseeker's benefit account for over €3.6 billion, while just over €1.1 billion will be spent on the one-parent family payment, and carers will receive €762 million in total.
Pensions and other supports for retired and older people account for nearly 29.6% of overall expenditure, or very nearly €6.1 billion. Close to 60%, or over €3.6 billion, goes on the contributory State pension, which is the single biggest social welfare scheme, while a further €951 million and €920 million respectively is expected to be required for the non-contributory State pension and the contributory widow's and widower's pension for those aged 66 and over. Expenditure on client identity management accounts for 0.1% of expenditure, or €14 million, while expenditure on operational capabilities accounts for 0.7% of expenditure, or €153 million.
Turning now to sources of funding, the Exchequer will make the most significant contribution to social welfare expenditure in terms of resources as it funds all assistance-based schemes and all child benefit. However, employees, employers and the self-employed also make a significant and valued contribution to the social welfare system through the operation of the social insurance fund. This year the income of the social insurance fund will be in excess of €7.1 billion but expenditure will be almost €9.1 billion, reflecting higher numbers of recipients and lower levels of employment and wages. The deficit of just over €1.9 billion will be financed by the Exchequer.
I hope my opening statement has given the committee a good overview of the Department's planned expenditure in 2011. As we are now more than halfway through the year, we know that unemployment figures are running at a level 40,000 higher than the last Government planned for in last December's budget. The schemes and services operated by the Department benefit everyone in society, either directly or indirectly, and are the key platform for the delivery of social protection in our country. I look forward to discussing the Estimates with the committee.
I thank the Minister for her opening statement. I propose to take questions under each subheading. Are there any questions on subhead A1?
When will we deal with general questions?
We will deal with the questions on each subhead first. Towards the end of the meeting, if the Minister has time to stay with us, we can have general questions on the Estimates. We will try to keep the discussion tied to each subhead first so each is dealt with. We have until 4 p.m. approximately, so we are okay for time. Subhead A1 deals with salaries, wages and allowances.
Given that the Department will have additional staff following the transfer of community welfare officers, is this Estimate accurate and will it reflect the increase in the salaries bill for the Department? The transfer will take place in September, so the increase will affect a quarter of the year.
Yes, the community welfare officers are in the programme budget. They are not in the administration budget because they will not be fully in the Department until September. When they come into the Department they become civil servants as opposed to working for the HSE and being public servants. Their costs are covered in the programme budget because the Department has always paid for the CWO service but now the CWOs are leaving the HSE and coming into the Department.
Does that mean there will be an increase in the salary section for next year?
The current figure is on page 38 of the overall Estimate, and page 4 of tab 1. The overall administration on supplementary welfare allowances for 2010 was €59,209,000 and the Estimate for 2010 is €66 million. It can seen under (n) on tab 1 on page 4, under the heading "Administration".
Subhead A2 is noted. Are there any questions on subheads A3, A4, A5, A6 or A7?
Under subhead A7, there is an increase. Can the Minister account for the doubling of the figure for consultancy services and value for money and policy reviews? Are any policy reports due later this year or early next year, based on the increase in funding?
Yes, some major projects are under way, such as the SDM technical development advice, part of the service delivery modernisation programme, to meet the Department's requirement for the provision of technical development advice on implementing agile business development models and the best technical design to develop business. The cost provided for this is €196,000.
In addition, business objects modelling advice and expertise will cost €133,000 to meet the Department's requirement for the provision of business object modelling expertise and advice in support of its work in developing the service delivery modernisation programme. The business objects modelling is the cornerstone of the Department's software development strategy and its application architecture. The architectural integrity of the BOMI is central to future developments. This advice assists the Department by helping to define specific modelling solutions and supports the coaching of Department staff in the further development of in-house business object modelling capability.
We then have the SWITCH model, with which people might be familiar. This model has been developed on an ongoing basis by the ESRI to simulate the effects of tax, social insurance and welfare changes. The model provides information on the impact of policy changes to poverty rates and is of particular value in conducting impact assessments. It costs €150,000.
The business process improvement provision is €243,000 and this is a draw-down for consultancy support in the design and implementation of a programme of business process improvements using Lean Six Sigma techniques. The consultants work with staff in the Department on specific projects and the transfer of skills and expertise is an important element of the contract. The Department is committed to delivering its services more swiftly, efficiently and economically and developing a culture of continuous improvement in the performance of teams and processes, as well as the dedicated business process improvement unit.
We then have the national pensions framework, which was published in March 2010. The work on that and the consultation with interested parties is ongoing and it is estimated it will cost about €100,000. The spend would be on developing technical aspects of the framework - actuarial, legal and administrative - and using a panel of researchers.
The payment strategy programme, which costs €111,000, will develop strategies to enable the Department to continue to modernise the payment of welfare benefits in line with wider Government policies such as e-payments and the national payment strategy. The Department conducted a market engagement with the payments market, including the financial services industry, in 2010. The information and insight gained from the market was consolidated in 2011 and used to shape and inform the payment strategy.
Members may be aware that over the last decade, the Department has been switching in many cases to electronic fund transfers. Equally, the Department has a long tradition of using the services of the post offices around the country. The Department would be a major customer of An Post and towards the end of the administrative Estimate, we will see the amounts the Department pays to post offices. New applicants for jobseeker's allowance or benefit must usually collect their payment at the local post office, partly as a control measure, rather than have money transferred directly into the bank, which was the system that was developing before we hit a road block with massive extra numbers signing on.
Are there any more questions on subhead A7? No. We will move to subhead A8, payments for agency services. That is noted. Subhead A9 covers e-Government projects.
There is a substantial increase under subhead A9 that is explained as being related to the standard authentication framework for public services card and the customer object development. I presume the advent of the public services card means some of the requirements for new applicants to collect their payments at social protection offices will be negated and that there may be savings as a result. Does the 300% increase cover all of the roll-out or do we have a figure yet for the full roll-out of the public services card?
There was a delay with this early last year because of industrial relations disputes that were ongoing in the Department. The roll-out of the card is not as advanced as might otherwise be the case.
Normally more than €5 million would be spent for each year on such projects but the main item under this heading is the standard authentication framework environment - SAFE - project at a cost of €4.2 million. It is to deliver the capability to issue and manage the new public services card and will result in the Department being in a position to issue a public services card to the public.
There is also a public services card development provision of €750,000. This is a complementary project to the SAFE project with the purpose of developing the capability to register the Department's customers to the various SAFE levels and to issue requests for public service cards to the third party service provider.
We also have electronic exchange of social security information. This project is to deliver the capability to allow EU member states to exchange social security information on EU citizens electronically. It is a central EU initiative that requires the European Commission to build a new computer system and member states to build new computer systems to interface with it. When complete, the system will allow member states to send and receive information electronically and replace paper-based systems. It will improve the speed of the exchange of information and enhance delivery to the customer. This will cost approximately €1 million this year.
The home-makers provision, whereby home-makers get credits, will cost €1 million. In terms of client eligibility services, €500,000 has been pencilled in for redesign.
Trying to update our IT hardware and software continually is a significant challenge for the Department. The sheer volume of payments and new claims every year is enormous. We could arrange for the committee to visit the Department and receive a briefing from officials. Members might also like to visit one of the exchanges. We have a new system in operation on a pilot basis in Dún Laoghaire to profile customers so that we can, for example, check out people's educational backgrounds. Under the activation model, people can be identified in terms of their chances of returning to work quickly. If someone's educational level is low, it can be suggested that he or she could pursue one of the educational opportunities. There is not much work for construction workers, but they could reskill or upgrade their educational qualifications. Perhaps when the committee gets going, it might like to arrange to see some of the pilot's work.
The Department is extremely decentralised and we have many local and regional offices around the country, including sizable operations in Sligo and Donegal.
I thank the Minister for her offer. We will take her up on it. During the Dáil's recess might be a good time. We are a large committee, so we might not all be able to fit in the same day, but we can discuss it with the Minister and her officials.
Yes.
In terms of subhead A9 and e-Government projects, the jump between the 2011 and 2010 Estimates is considerable. Will this amount bring that series of projects to an end in 2011 or will spending continue over several years? Will the trend continue into next year? When one spends on computerisation, and so on., one expects to deliver certain efficiencies and savings down the line. Have these been quantified?
The provision in the 2010 budget was more than €11 million. As the Deputy can see actual spending was only €1.876 million. One reason for the underspending was the number of industrial relations disputes in the Department. In some ways, the Estimate has been rolled over into the current year.
The EU project has been progressing much more slowly, but that is not an Irish issue. The EU must build a common platform. As the Deputy knows, experience tells us that building complex platforms and IT systems often takes much longer than is suggested at the outset.
Regarding the security of the information held, I presume that all technological changes will incur additional e-security costs, given the hacking attempts suffered by US Departments, social networks and so on. In light of the scale of the e-government project, what will be the overall cost of securing the Department's data and the data it will share with the EU?
The Department is conscious of its customers' right to privacy. Every effort is made to ensure no unwarranted access is made to personal data. Since I do not have the figure for the total spend, I will need to ask my officials to get the Deputy the information.
An observation I have made since becoming Minister is that, while personal privacy should be secured, we lack a great deal of information about people in receipt of, for example, jobseeker's allowance, such as whether they have been unemployed previously and where and how often they have worked. In most European countries, it is possible to research such material without disclosing the individual's identity. Doing more of this sort of work is something we need to consider so that we can know for how long people have been in receipt of jobseeker's allowance, what we can do to get them to move off of it and build up more general profiles. It is surprising how little general information the Irish system contains about our customer profile. Pensioners and children are distinct groups, in that the former get pensions and the latter get child benefit, but we do not know as much as we ought to about people in receipt of jobseeker's allowance and similar payments. That information would help us to better target resources, services and options towards people in receipt of social welfare payments.
On subhead A9, how is the public services card progressing? Was this to what the Minister referred in her comments? What is meant by customer object development?
The public services card is a project that the Department has had under way for several years. The basic idea is that everyone with a PPS number will have a card containing biometric data, in this case a photograph. We hope to start the roll-out later this year, fingers crossed. The card will be an identifier for social security purposes. Members might remember how, in recent legislation, we took some steps to protect against the card's misuse. I hope the card's development will make the administration of social welfare more efficient and speedier and guard against social welfare fraud.
Very good.
I see that subhead A9 refers to the national pensions framework on home-makers. Does this relate to people who stay at home and must sign on to keep their home-maker credits going because their credits have been mixed up? Is it to ensure that we keep enough information on them so that, when they retire, they keep receiving their credits?
Yes. This has been an important feature of the social protection system since 1994. It allows women who care for children, or other dependants such as an elderly relative, and who, therefore, are not in the workplace to apply for credits for up to 20 years. This means that when they reach pensionable age, if they have also worked for a period, they should be in a position to qualify for a pension.
With regard to the profile of recipients, the home-maker's credits are currently a disregard, but from 2012 the actual credits will count as the equivalent of a pension contribution. It is a valuable measure. It is important to ensure women, in particular, in this role - although there are more men in caring roles now and there are quite a number who are full-time carers at different stages in their lives - know that they should sign on and register for the credits because, subsequently, they can be extremely valuable to them.
Does that mean that a person who is not entitled to any social welfare benefit would have to continue to sign on for credits for a pension?
No. If a person is receiving child benefit, one can do it automatically. By virtue of a person receiving child benefit, it is evidence she has a child, a child dependant. Child benefit is paid up until the child is 18 years of age. However, if a person is caring for an older relative, it is always wise to check the level of entitlements one needs to keep intact.
On a point of clarity, must a person be in receipt of a carer's allowance or a recognised allowance to qualify for credits? What proof does a person need to present that he or she is caring for someone?
In the case of children, it is the child. In the case of older people, there is a series of tests which often relate to the person's physical condition. Traditionally, carers often lived with the person for whom they cared. With the development of the half-rate carer's allowance, there has been a substantial increase in the number of people caring and some of those people might be home helps. It varies throughout the country.
In the case of parents who mind their children up to the age of 18 when the payment of child benefit ceases, what is the position then? These people might not be able to return to work. There might not be any jobs for them. What is the position for those people from that time until they reach pension age? How do they maintain their credits or ensure there is recognition of their credits?
They would be entitled to credits up to the time when their youngest child becomes 18. After that, if they want to, they can then register. In many cases they would seek to do educational courses and so on. In the case of lone parents, with effect from April 2011 the entitlement applies up to the time the child is 14 years of age and then the parent would be in receipt of jobseeker's benefit or some other benefit.
We will move on to subhead B which covers the non-contributory State pension.
I have a question on the first-----
I also point out that the entitlement for home carers is also there until the child is 14 years of age.
Deputy Ryan has a question in respect of subhead A.
Yes, on the subhead A group, there is no specific section under the various subheads covering communication in terms of advising people of their entitlements. Where is that covered? In her short time in the Department, what is the Minister's view on the adequacy of provision for advising people of their entitlements?
I would bring the Deputy back to page 21, which sets out the payments for agency services. Communications is covered by a very wide range of payments. For instance, the Deputy will note that, under subhead A8, the estimate for payments to An Post is €32 million. Some of that includes the cost of letter communications by the Department.
In addition, the Department has a press office which produces a series of information leaflets and reports on budgets and changes in the system. The Department also has a website which gives information on schemes. The Department runs special inquiry lines for the benefit of Deputies, which I hope they find useful in terms of people's entitlements. We also have an information section in Sligo. Every social welfare office has an information office. We have a web page and phone banks with reduced rate calls in regard to different schemes. The Citizens Information Board is funded by the Department and the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, is a subset of the Citizens Information Board. The Citizens Information Board and MABS give a great deal of information to people with specific inquiries. MABS gives information to people who may have difficulties in regard to debt. Some €46 million is spent on MABS and the Citizens Information Board.
On the adequacy of communications, I met some people recently-----
I do not want the Deputy to stray from what we are discussing.
This is about budgets.
Okay.
I refer to gaps in spending and how that might be addressed. It is an important consideration. Many recipients are not aware that when their jobseeker's benefit runs out and they do not qualify for jobseeker's allowance because of a means test qualification, they need to sign on for credits. There is big gap in communications in this respect and resources are required to fill that gap.
There are people going into social welfare offices in the recession who never expected to find themselves there. We have all met people like that who may have had a small business or a bigger business, especially if they were self-employed, who find this a whole new experience. Every office has an information desk. A person, particularly if he or she had been self-employed, on first encountering the social welfare system when submitting an application for benefit finds there are quite a number of requirements. I hear comments from people that they find it difficult to navigate the system.
We have inherited a very complicated system in Ireland. We have 60 schemes while most countries have fewer than 20. Our schemes have increased over the decades. That is one of the reasons the system is so complicated. I agree with Deputy Ryan that people should be encouraged to sign on for credits to keep their connection with the social welfare system and especially to register if they are unemployed and are available and looking for work.
The issue of communicating the message is one the committee could take on but we will move on from it now.
The point I am making is what is provided in the budget for such communications as against what is not provided in it and what should be provided in it
I accept that. Subhead B covers the non-contributory State pension, subhead C covers the blind person's pension and subhead D covers child benefit.
For the information of Members, the critical factor to note is the number of people. Some 96,000 people get the non-contributory State pension while a much smaller number of people, just under 1,500, are in receipt of the blind person's pension. Some 1.12 million children get child benefit. The schemes vary enormously in size and complexity.
Subhead E covers jobseeker's allowance.
Under subhead D, there is a small drop in the number of recipients of child benefit. I presume, given the increase in the birth rate, expenditure in this area will increase in the coming years.
The fall in expenditure is due to the reduction in rates. Child benefit was payable at the rate of €150 which was reduced to €140 in the last budget. This is an enormous saving, given the number of children who benefit.
Even with the reduction, I presume expenditure will increase, unless the Government intends to further cut the rate of child benefit this year.
No, it will stabilise.
It will stabilise, even though the birth rate is increasing.
If it stabilises and the birth rate increases, the Vote will clearly increase.
I presume that confirms the trends.
We have a very high birth rate. One of the good aspects of the Celtic tiger was that people were having children and they continued to do so after the tiger was no more.
It is a popular recession activity.
We will not go into the various reasons for this. We will move on to subhead E, jobseeker's allowance, and subhead F, farm assist programme.
In regard to the estimated increase, are the projections on target? Cuts have been made to the REPS payment which was a valuable source of income for farmers. The previous Government made a further cut to it this year.
There has been an underspend in this area, but we are not expecting great changes. A significant number of farmers worked in the construction sector during the boom years and many of them have returned to farming as their main source of income.
We will move on to subheads G1 to G10, inclusive, employment support services; subhead H, pre-retirement allowance; subhead I, one-parent family payment; subheads J1 to J3, inclusive; and subhead K, deserted wife's allowance.
On subhead K, I am aware the deserted wife's allowance has been discontinued, but is that terminology still being used? It is an archaic and stigmatising phrase.
New applicants are classed as lone parents, but others are already participating in the scheme.
In respect of those already participating in the scheme, their payment is classed as deserted wife's allowance.
It is still payable.
It is horrible terminology to use in the 21st century. It dates back to times we should not be discussing.
The scheme changed in 1997. Some may have preferred to retain the allowance at the time because, if I recall correctly, they regarded it as being in a different category. It referred to somebody who was married and deserted as opposed to an individual who chose to parent alone.
There are no plans to change it.
We can change it, but only 485 people receive the allowance. Several schemes have small numbers of recipients, but sometimes people value particular descriptions.
That is true. I take the Minister's point.
I believe the payment was introduced by Frank Cluskey in the 1970s.
We will move on to subhead L, family income supplement.
Has the family income supplement increased in the past few years? It appears to have increased by 7% this year, with 920 additional families availing of it. I ask the Minister to comment on the warning shot she fired over the bow regarding the impact of JLCs on the supplement.
If wages are generally reduced, one would expect more people to qualify for the supplement, but the scheme has a mixed history. There has always been a view that more people are entitled to it than claim it. Larger employers are in a better position to facilitate claims, but smaller companies may not have the same level of knowledge. The advisory group I established will investigate the effectiveness of the supplement. A number of countries provide a tax credit instead, but while this is often seen as more effective, it can technically be difficult to manage. The United Kingdom experienced a degree of chaos for several years after it introduced tax credits, but the benefit went directly to families with children. This is one of the changes we might make to our system. In 2001, 11,880 families received family income supplement and that figure increased to 28,223 in 2010, including approximately 62,000 children. The take-up rate might be higher with a tax-based system.
The Minister has already answered my question. Concerns were expressed in the previous Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, of which I was a member, that family income supplement was not being taken up by the families which needed it. It is important to communicate its availability. I am heartened to note the increase in the payment this year.
The spend in 2010 was €186 million. It is a significant benefit. In some areas of the public sector people with a large number of children may qualify. The average salary of service officers and cleaners in my Department is around €24,700 per annum, €32,000 for clerical officers, and €41,000 for staff officers. Somebody who goes into the executive grade is generally above €50,000. There are 2,348 clerical officers in my Department and 618 staff officers. If they had three children, they would be in a position to claim FIS. It is generally larger employers who are better set up and maybe there is more information in a larger company and in public bodies to claim for FIS. One gets the impression that employers of smaller numbers would find it too bureaucratic.
It is one of the points I have argued with the Minister in respect of the change in the minimum wage. The change in the minimum wage, meant that a number of people will have qualified for family income supplement. Whether they know that or not is down to a problem with information. Is this Vote big enough to cover the expected increase due to the drop in the minimum wage? The drop in the minimum wage benefitted the employer, but it will also affect the State, because those families will be able to claim family income supplement.
From the figures supplied by the Minister, it looks like there was an increase year on year of between 2,000 and 2,500 in the number of families claiming the supplement. Given that families' incomes have been further eroded and the qualification methods for the family income supplement are different for other allowances, is it expected that the increase in the number claiming will be something similar to that in previous years? Will it remain at around 2,000 or 2,500, or will it be a bigger figure?
The Deputy spoke about the minimum wage. The reinstatement of the previous minimum wage should decrease the level of dependence on FIS, all other things being equal. I think the Deputy referred to the reduction in employer's PRSI. He had an example with the half rate of employer's PRSI at €356 per week, and he felt there might be a tendency for employers to come down to that. We will keep that under observation. I know that the Deputy will as well.
I am not a lawyer, but when I read the judgment on the JLCs, it effectively demolished the concept of those arrangements. I felt quite happy that the Dáil had agreed at least to reinstate the minimum wage. I did not have a sense that the judgment might be as sweeping as legal people tell me it is.
People wait 20 weeks to be told that they are not paying the right grade of stamp. There are part-time and full-time stamp grades. It should be printed in black and white what stamp grade entitles people to FIS, instead of waiting 20 weeks to be told they are not entitled to it.
If we take an example of a couple where both are earning and the senior earner looks to be eligible, when we take in the other earnings in the family, that complicates entitlement to FIS. The best thing is for the Department to try to improve the website information. Most people are pretty good at navigating a site and getting the information. There is no doubt that it is a very complicated payment. It is complicated for the individuals and it is complicated for employers to understand. It has always been my experience that larger employers tend to have a bigger wages department and are more used to doing it. The take-up could still be improved.
I was delighted that the minimum wage cut was reversed and the euro given back. That affected about 60,000 workers. The JLCs affect between 200,000 and 250,000 workers. Does the Minister envisage an increase? How will that impact on the budget next year?
That is not a matter for me directly, but the judgment is being studied very carefully. Lawyers suggest they were aware that there were these defects in that legislation. On the other hand, the legislation had stood for 60 years. It is being studied very carefully, but the judge's ruling is very comprehensive, so much work must be done to examine what happens from now. I felt relieved that the minimum wage had been reinstated, because that provides a floor to some degree.
The Minister must be anxious to protect the interests of those affected by the JLCs, because there are so many of them. On foot of this decision, their contracts may not have the protection they require. Would it not be in the Minister's interests to entice her colleagues in the Government to appeal this decision, so as to-----
We are discussing the Estimates. I cannot go into questions like that today. Maybe we can do it towards the end of the meeting. The Minister will also be here again next week. However, we have to deal with the Estimates now.
It has an effect on the FIS and so on.
The Minister can give a short answer, but I will not allow a full debate on it because it is not for today. If she likes, we can leave it until next week when she is here again.
I just know that the judgment is being examined in great detail because it is very comprehensive and lengthy. It needs to be studied in great detail. The objective is to protect as many low paid workers as possible. The experience in Ireland has been that most employers do not cut the wages of existing staff; it is more for new people being taken on. We are really in uncharted territory in respect of how employers react to the judgment. Everybody is just absorbing it and studying it at the moment.
We will now move on to subhead M, which deals with the carer's allowance. Then we will move on to subhead N, which deals with supplementary welfare allowances.
In respect of rent supplements, most of us would prefer if there were long-term housing for people rather than seeing them end up in private rented accommodation. Given that this is an ongoing issue and that the amount of money it is costing every year will not solve the long-term housing issue, does the Department have long-term plans to reduce this and offer some alternative?
If we look at the figures, the Ballymun regeneration programme costs approximately €1 billion, and pretty much the whole community has been rehoused at half the cost of the budget. If that is being spent every year with no other alternative being provided, that is a great deal of money being wasted. Does the Department envisage looking at other alternatives to this? It not tenable forever.
About 100,000 people receive rent supplement. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to transfer the administration of rent supplement to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, where it will become part of the approach to housing. Rent supplement was originally designed as an emergency rent support payment. It was not really meant to last more than a couple of months. It was for a person in employment who may have lost their job while renting a premises and it gave support while the person found another job. It has moved from that to become an enormously expensive scheme. It is important to move this to the local authorities which will have it as part of housing provision.
Another difficulty with rent supplement may concern the family we discussed earlier with two adults and three children. In most of the Dublin area and some other cities, a house with a rent of €900 to €1,000 per month would be required for that family, leaving a cost of €10,000 to €12,000 per year. Adding that to the social welfare package a family of five might get, the family might need to be offered approximately €40,000 to make a job attractive. If a person takes a job, he or she would lose rent supplement but if a person is a tenant of the rental accommodation scheme or local authority, the differential rent is based on a percentage of income. It is one of the big employment traps in the current system.
If we move the scheme to local authorities, we might be able to get better value for money on rents. The Department now accounts for approximately 40% of the spend on private rented accommodation but that is negotiated with each tenant. I am told that 49,000 people are on short-term rent supplement, with 48,000 people on long-term rent supplement. There is a table of statistics on page 95 of the submission which gives the rent supplement figures for each county. It contains amazing information, with the total for rent supplement at just under 100,000 people.
It would be a big reform of the system to achieve what we have set out. One of the targets is to save money and with some people who have been a long time on rent supplement, it might have been better to spend the money on permanent housing provision, which is what the Deputy discussed.
That was my point.
We will not have a full debate on this today.
That is my point as the money is going down the drain every year when people could have long-term housing. I hope the transfer of rent supplement sections to local authorities in the future will not just mean the issue is passed to local authorities, with someone else benefiting in the long term by providing private rented accommodation. That is happening now. The person who is being housed is not the winner, rather the person receiving the payment, the landlord. I would like to see long-term action on this front.
This is high on our agenda and work programme.
I have a question on supplementary welfare allowance, SWA. The Minister has given a reason for the 16.9% decrease as the improvement in turnaround and waiting times. My experience on the ground is that there has been no improvement in waiting times. In the overall scheme, are the budget lines related? A jobseeker's allowance payment would come from the Minister's budget in the same fashion as supplementary welfare allowance. Would it not be neutral overall?
This area is changing now because people who wish to claim a benefit go directly to a local office. People may remember that those who did not qualify for a payment trotted to a community welfare officer where they got SWA. The community welfare office is coming into the Department and people will make a claim, for example, for a one parent allowance, directly in the local office. The local office should be in a position to adjudicate more quickly in this respect, meaning the need for SWA will fall, as will waiting times. Waiting times have fallen considerably, with the average numbers relating to jobseeker's allowance pending in the middle of 2009 at 50,000, and the current figure at approximately 25,000. With regard to jobseeker's benefit, 30,000 people were waiting in mid-2009 and currently fewer than 10,000 people are waiting.
Most of the bigger offices are now directly dealing with a series of claims, although I am not sure if this has been rolled out to all offices. In all large offices all claims are dealt with directly. The consequence of this is to cut down on SWA, although there is no great monetary difference. However, people are paid the benefit they are seeking, if they qualify, far more quickly than they would under the old scheme. That means much of the work of the community welfare officer has changed, and we anticipate that community welfare officers, along with those coming from FÁS, will be giving advice directly to people about getting back into work, education and training. We are looking to get people active.
Perhaps when the Minister attends next week we can discuss general waiting times in the Department as it is a big issue. We may as well touch on it next week.
I have been looking through the book and the rent supplement figures exclude the rental accommodation scheme.
Yes.
That is an additional amount.
The value of the rental accommodation scheme is that if someone is on the scheme for two or three years or even longer, he or she has the same entitlement to work as others. Everyone in Dublin calls it the RAS. Essentially, people on the scheme are in a differential rent structure.
I met local authority managers last week in the Custom House with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, and his Minister of State, Deputy Penrose. This was one of the issues discussed in the meeting. The business of people being restricted in access to work must be eliminated. It is interesting that the concerns of local authority managers were that some people who go for the scheme might sign up to make a household budgeting payment at the post office but, in law, those people could make a withdrawal from that two weeks later. A number of local authorities were concerned that they were at risk of a build-up of arrears which could be difficult to deal with. I will consider the matter with respect to legislation.
If people use the household budgeting system or a similar system to commit to paying rent, local authorities would like the Department of Social Protection to deduct the rent at source. We will not have the technology to do this for another year or two because of the other changes being implemented. The local authorities do not want to build up arrears, especially as the Department is paying the money. Another difficulty is that it is the tenant rather than the Department that is the customer. We pay the tenant, who then pays the landlord. As the Deputy probably knows, there have even been problems with people paying private landlords. The issue has been identified by managers in some councils as being a significant risk. The issue to which I refer involves the local authority taking someone on and arranging for payments to be made through the post office, only for the person in question to renege and cancel the arrangement.
Is the Minister happy that the local authorities are taking this over? At the moment, the housing sections of local authorities-----
That is not really a question for the Estimates. We will deal with it at the end.
Is the Minister happy that the relevant sections of the local authorities can take this over even though many of them are under-staffed? It is a huge commitment.
We will deal with that at the end. It does not arise under this subhead.
We might come back to this. It is a huge issue. I think it is absolutely the way to go, in principle. There is almost a prohibition on working, in effect, if one is on rent supplement. That is a terrible barrier to getting work. I gave the example of the head of a family of five who has no job.
Does the Minister see-----
I will not allow Deputy Butler to go there on this one. It is a big debate.
It is.
However, we cannot have it today. Subhead O relates to disability allowance. Subhead P relates to the respite care grant. Subhead Q relates to social assistance schemes and social insurance schemes.
On subhead Q, we heard the news this week that Bord Gáis intends to increase its gas charges. Has the Department agreed its contract for this year? If so, will it be affected by the increase? Will the Department go out to tender for the supply of electricity or gas next year? Is it intended to do so to get better value? A substantial sum of money is provided under the free schemes.
The legal reality is that the contract is between the individual social welfare customer and the various companies that provide gas and electricity, etc. The allowances are based on numbers of units. If the price per unit goes up, the Department covers the increase.
Subhead R relates to school meals schemes. Subhead S relates to the grant to the Citizens Information Board.
What is involved in the grant to the Citizens Information Board?
The Estimate for the total expenditure of the Citizens Information Board is €46 million. It was €44.9 million last year. It is clear from the headings that it is largely spent on the services and offices of the Citizens Information Board and the money advice and budgeting service, MABS.
I know that people encounter extraordinarily long queues when they try to get an appointment with the money advice and budgeting service. Is it possible that the amount of money given to this well-used and important service could be increased?
By the end of April 2011, some 7,780 new clients had approached the money advice and budgeting service to seek assistance. That compares with 7,330 new clients by the end of April 2010. As members are aware, the service was initially established to help people with low incomes who often have significant debt issues. I have been getting advice from MABS and talking to it about how its services might be improved and better targeted.
Does the service need help to deal with more complex financial situations?
I do not think the money advice and budgeting service was established to help people with small businesses, for example. Many businesses have complex debt issues. MABS helps individuals with personal debt issues, as opposed to business debt issues.
Am I right in saying MABS is the subject of an internal review at the moment?
There is no such review at present. I asked the board of MABS to give me advice on how to make the service better, with specific reference to debt levels and issues relating to loans. I asked how it might be possible to facilitate some remediation between lenders and borrowers at different levels, which is a big issue. We could probably devote a whole meeting to this matter. Difficulties can be experienced by a person who bought a house and has a high mortgage of €1,200 a month but, as a result of loss of income, can only repay €800 a month. The policy adopted in such circumstances varies from lender to lender. Some lenders, including some big banks, require the loan to go into default - some of the payments not to be made - before they are prepared to engage with the borrower. It varies from bank to bank, as I have said. It is a problem because as soon as people go into default, they are in a much more difficult situation from a debt point of view. It has been suggested that a more rapid service that allows for partial payments should be available. When sub-prime cases come before the courts from time to time, people often say they offered 60% or 70% of the monthly figure that was due but the bank would not take it. That is particularly true of sub-prime lenders because insurance arrangements may mean it is in their interests to refuse such offers. People who talk to me say the problem with ordinary big banks and traditional building societies is that they will not deal with them unless they go into default. Most people do not want to do that if they can avoid it at all. It might not be a good idea for people working in particular jobs to go into default.
It is high on our agenda. The previous committee compiled a report on this subject. We might start by examining that and adding to it. The Minister might give us her thoughts on the original report at some stage. We can start off in that way this side of September. It is very important. Subhead T relates to the domiciliary care allowance. Subhead U relates to the rural social scheme. Subhead V relates to the community services programme. Subhead W relates to FÁS employment programmes. Subhead X relates to miscellaneous services. Subhead Y relates to the subvention to the social insurance fund. Subhead Z relates to appropriations-in-aid. We will move on to the social insurance fund.
There is a deficit of €1.9 billion in the social insurance fund. Did the Minister say earlier that it will be met by the Exchequer?
Is the Deputy looking at the summary of the overall position?
Yes. I believe the Minister said this was being met by the Exchequer.
I am afraid I did not hear the question.
I believe Minister said earlier that the deficit of €2.9 billion would be met by the Exchequer.
Yes. It is called a social insurance fund, but it is not actually funded. It is the difference between expenditure and receipts. Obviously, because of the decrease in the number of people at work, the fund has reduced and is now in deficit, whereas during the boom years it was in surplus.
In case anybody has any questions, I will call out the headings as follows: income from contributions; income from investments; rent; receipts on reciprocal arrangements-----
What are we going through?
The social insurance fund schemes. The remaining headings are: illness benefit; invalidity pension; partial capacity benefit; overview of occupational injuries benefit schemes; maternity benefit; health and safety benefit; adoptive benefit; treatment benefit; dental benefit; optical benefit; treatment benefit - medical and surgical; the State pension, contributory; the State pension, transition; jobseeker's benefit-----
I have a question on that benefit. The Minister said the single biggest factor was the continuing financial impact of the high number on the live register. The expenditure on job seeker's benefit and allowance is €3.67 billion, €420 million less than in 2010. Apart from this, does the jobs initiative go far enough and if not, does the Government have other cost-neutral measures? It has been widely acknowledged that the jobs initiative will play a limited role - it cannot be expected to do all of what it says on the tin. The Minister has said it has the biggest impact on the Department's finances, yet the allocation for jobseeker's benefit and allowance is €420 million less than in 2010.
Obviously, approximately two years ago great numbers came onto the live register, having lost their jobs. The rate of increase has flattened out, but more people are facing long-term unemployment. In some cases, if all they have as an entitlement is benefit, they are dropping out of the labour force. In addition, the rate has been cut in different years. We now have a bigger body of people, even if the rate of increase has changed somewhat. In the budget for 2011 the previous Government provided for a growth rate of approximately 0.7%, if memory serves me right - it was 1.75% and then it was reduced somewhat. The consequence for economic modelling was that far more people were expected to be back at work. The differential is averaging out at 39,000 to 40,000 per month in the year so far.
Is the Minister suggesting the trend will be significantly reversed next year?
It depends on what happens to employment. If we can maximise the uptake in schemes such as the back to work allowance scheme, the enterprise allowance scheme and the internship scheme, people will be activated, but they will not leave the live register figures. The OECD points to this as a major difference between Ireland and other countries. In most countries those in partial employment and students back at college are not counted as being unemployed. Our statistics are compiled in a slightly different way.
That confirms that the internships and other schemes provided for in jobs initiative, while welcome, are limited in their effect.
Yes. Every 5,000 is another 5,000 places for people to do things. However, what we really want is to have a return to economic growth which will produce jobs, even though there is often a lag between the return to economic growth and the filling of jobs. In the early 1990s we had that awful thing, jobless growth, for approximately two and a half years, which was very difficult because all the indicators were positive, yet people were still not being taken on. In modern economies there are two economies. Our export trade in goods and services is doing very well, but it is not as jobs rich as it once was, and then we have the domestic economy. In the United Kingdom confidence has been very low and domestic spending has fallen. It is the same here. People are very worried about their futures. In addition, they are on reduced incomes or have lost some or all of their business. Domestic demand has just not recovered to the levels we would like to see.
I return to the list of headings as follows: widow's, widower's and surviving civil partner's pension, contributory; guardian payment, contributory; deserted wife's benefit; carer's benefit; bereavement grant; redundancy and insolvency schemes-----
Does that money count for SNAs who have lost their jobs or had their hours reduced, or is that covered by the Department of Education and Skills?
This is the scheme that was operated by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation. As large delays had accumulated mainly for construction workers who had lost their jobs, it was taken over by the Department of Social Protection to try to reduce waiting times. As I am not sure about SNAs, I will not comment, but I will find out about it. The big build up would have been due to people in companies which went into insolvency. As the Deputy will see, it covers redundancy and insolvency schemes, almost entirely in the private sector. In the past few years it has covered construction companies going bust. The staff in the Department of Social Protection and the staff who transferred to the Department have cut the waiting times significantly.
Could the two be separated in the future?
It covers redundancies in the private and public sectors. Obviously, insolvency tends to relate to the private sector. We can see if we can get a breakdown of the figures. I believe this is the first year it has operated fully in this Department; it used to be in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation. At the time of the construction bust, there were many grievous problems with companies which had gone bust and all sorts of issues to be resolved relating to how they paid employer's contributions and so on. Many of these companies went into liquidation. Some of the big builders had 200 or 300 companies and special purpose vehicles. As a Deputy, I dealt with a number of individuals in incredibly complicated situations who were owed money and trying to receive their redundancy or insolvency payments.
When will the partial capacity benefit scheme be rolled out?
The previous Minister had done a lot of work on it and the hope was to begin rolling it out later in the year, based on levels of incapacity. It has not commenced yet, but we hope it might commence in November. It will concentrate on people with disabilities but with partial ability who will be allowed to work proportionate to their level of ability.
Very good.
With regard to the redundancy and insolvency payment, is this the pot from which 60% of the statutory amount is reimbursed?
Yes.
As there are no questions on the social insurance fund administration expenses of the Department, including administration expenses incurred by service providers, and as we have dealt with most of the subheads, I am happy to spend some time dealing with general questions on the Estimates. However, we will not have a full debate on other issues, as it is only fair that members of the wider committee should be here to take part in such a debate.
In the overall context, the Minister has outlined that overall expenditure is in the region of €20.6 billion. Given this figure, the social insurance fund deficit of €1.6 billion which is being met by the Exchequer, that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, has talked about increasing the level of public spending cuts from €3.6 billion to €4 billion and that, when I questioned the Minister in the Dáil, she was adamant that she would do everything in her power to retain the rates as per the commitment given in the programme for Government, I worry when I hear other Ministers entering the debate such as the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, for example, who last week used the words "in so far as they could." We need assurance that the Minister will seek to adhere to the commitment given in the programme for Government to maintain rates.
As I said, these are budgetary matters, on which I cannot make a commitment. There are very stringent commitments to the IMF which for next year amount to €822 million. There are also commitments in the budget for this year which were never actually published and which amount to several hundred million euro and which I set out in a previous parliamentary reply to the Deputy.
The aim is to try to target benefits and payments as well as possible at the people who most need them. There is a value for money issue and also an issue of trying to cut down on fraud. If we can reduce the level of fraud, for example, we may have more money to spend on those with legitimate entitlements to social protection. I am anxious to see the Department roll out a major anti-fraud programme. We took on some extra powers in the recent Social Welfare and Pensions Bill, for example, to have greater interaction between Revenue, the Department of Social Protection, the customs service and the Garda in terms of checkpoints and so on. I also want to see inspectors going out to inspect. We are making contact on a very large scale with customers to ensure people are who they say they are and that as far as possible we stop or limit fraud.
The Minister seems to be basing her answer on the availability of funds that may become available as a result of anti-fraud measures. Again, the programme for Government set a very ambitious target in this area, which would leave the Minister in a position where she could guarantee rates in the next two years, with some €470 million having been saved last year. Is it the case that she envisages the figure for this year being double that amount, because that is what would be required-----
I cannot give a figure as I do not have that level of knowledge at this time. Currently, senior officials in the Department are working on a new anti-fraud programme. I have had a joint meeting between my Department and the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners; therefore, there is a high level of co-operation between the Department, Revenue and the customs service, which is critical in tackling fraud. Some €533 million is being built into the Estimate this year in this respect.
The other factor, as the Deputy will see if he goes into his local social welfare office, is that there has been such a huge increase in the number of applications and customers that it has been a case of all hands on deck to deal with these applications. The critical point is that there is a need for social welfare inspectors to be back out on the road, talking to and interviewing people, and making sure they are entitled to the benefits and payments they are receiving. It is also important that the word go out that the Department is not a soft touch when it comes to fraud. In many ways, it is a cultural issue. We must show as little tolerance for fraud as possible in the system.
To follow on from the points made by Deputy Cowen, the Minister has mentioned people have little money in their pockets and are fearful of spending it. They need to know categorically that the Government will not cut social welfare rates next year. Can the Minister assure us of this? We are hearing different things, with one Minister saying "Definitely not" and another-----
To clarify, while I gave the Deputy some latitude, we are discussing the Estimates for this year. However, I will let the Minister respond.
To be clear, this is a budgetary matter and I am not going to make any commitments here. I will do my absolute best to protect social welfare payments and rates, but because it is a budgetary matter and we are under the cosh in respect of the IMF arrangement - I did not write the programme, but I have inherited its schedule of cuts in social welfare of €822 million a year - there will have to be changes. There will be €2.1 billion in cuts in capital and revenue expenditure, as well social welfare payments, over the period of the programme. There will have to be changes, but we should make them in a way that will help us to target the people who most need payments and also to help people to get back into the labour market or education and training. As I said, I personally find it very distressing to see young people in their 20s drifting into a life of social welfare payments. It is a big cul-de-sac. The Springboard initiative and the back-to-education initiatives offer significant opportunities if people can be persuaded to avail of them.
We will take questions on the Estimates for this year from Deputy Collins before I proceed to call Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
The Minister made the point that the anti-fraud initiative could be a money earner if the issue of fraud were tackled.
It would reduce spending; it would not be a money earner.
The general consensus throughout Europe is that at a maximum there is a fraud rate of about 1% in any system; therefore, it would not have a huge impact on the moneys in the budget.
I would not sniff at a saving of 1% as 1% of €20 billion is a lot.
I know we are dealing with the Estimates, but the debate always has a habit of straying. I will try not to do so.
I welcome the Minister's commitment to tackling fraud. As I have argued with other Ministers, overpayments are often lumped together with fraud. If at all possible, could more work be done to show the difference when reporting to the committee in future? There are genuine overpayments caused by mistakes in the system or mistakes by claimants. They should not be treated the same as those who specifically set out to defraud the State and that should be taken into account.
I welcome the opportunity to deal with the Estimates. They are not of the Minister's making but there was a commitment made to the IMF that there would be a reduction in spending on social welfare and it is difficult to see how that can be done with increased numbers of people claiming jobseeker's allowance, family income supplement, the increase in child benefit thanks to the high birth rate and the increases in unemployment in particular.
There are, and I pointed them out when I was answering parliamentary questions, a number of areas where plans had been made by the last Government. They are in the Estimate but they had not been publicly announced. We must make choices when the budget comes around but I have told the committee how I intend to shape the decisions I make - by trying to be more targeted.
The Minister in her opening statement talked about more than 6.5 million telephone calls being received in headquarters. How were those numbers measured? I regularly hear about people who cannot get an answer when they call offices. We previously talked about Estimates for the technology projects. Would the Minister consider looking at possibilities to measure the number of unanswered calls and using that as an indicator of customer services to drive improvement in the future?
We can try to get that information and we might return to that later. I cannot give a comprehensive answer now. The whole lo-call system was set up 20 years ago so it has evolved.
During the boom years the pressures on social welfare fell enormously. If people come in to claim child benefit or a pension, they fall into very well-defined categories. If they are the correct age for a pension or are under 18, they are easily identified. Different categories of benefit claimant, such as jobseekers, disability payment recipients and invalidity pension recipients are complex cases where entitlements must be examined. When the economy was growing, the level of unemployment had fallen dramatically so the caseload was more predictable. During those years, there was a major shift to self-employment, with people working as subcontractors and owning small companies. We also had a huge wave of inward migration. Where there are queries now, many of them relate to those who were self-employed and their social welfare status. There are also queries from those who have immigrated, who constitute a major proportion of appeals. Other major elements are those with claims for disability, which are based on medical evidence and considerations. The volume of appeals expanded enormously and after taking up office, I appointed nine new appeals officers. We hope that will cut down on waiting times.
In 2010, 531,000 people left the register. People often do not appreciate that people who become unemployed are back at work seven or eight months later. Of that figure, 31%, or 167,000, left to take up employment, some left because their benefit period expired and their spouse or partner may have an income so they no longer qualified. Of those who leave, 59% have been signing on for six months or less and 76% of those who leave have been signing on for 12 months or less. Those really at risk are those who drift into long-term unemployment.