Marie Moloney (Labour)

I welcome the Minister and thank her for giving her time in such a busy period leading to the budget. We know it is a tough and these are unprecedented times given our financial position. Unpalatable decisions must be made and we may find it hard to stand by such decisions, although we will do it in the interest of the country. However, there are a few issues I would like to discuss with the Minister to elicit the thoughts and reasoning behind them. That may help us to understand why the Minister feels such decisions must be made.

I add my voice to the concerns of people about employers having to pay the first four weeks of illness benefit to employees. As the Minister will appreciate, it is a very hard time for employers as well as employees, with many only hanging in there by the skin of their teeth. My fear is that this could cause widespread unemployment, as many employers will not be in a position to carry this extra burden. I am interested to know how the Minister believes this could be implemented and the logistics? Have there been negotiations with the social partners and where would an employer stand with employees who did not have the proper contributions to qualify for illness benefit within the Department of Social Protection?Would they still be obliged to pay this category of people and would it be seen as inequality in the workplace if they do not pay them?

Will there be a clause whereby employers can claim inability to pay? What happens the employee if the employers simply say he cannot afford to pay the illness benefit? What happens if an employee takes sick leave on several occasion during the year and will the employer be expected to pay the first four weeks on a number of occasions? I fail to see how implementation of this proposal could reduce absenteeism. If employees know that employers must pay for four weeks of sick leave, will they jet off on holidays while sending on sick certs? Will people go back to their own countries knowing employers must pay for four weeks? We recently reduced the VAT rate to help tourism and employers but this would have the opposite effect. I welcome the Minister's thoughts on the matter.

Currently, most employers are having significant difficulty with their rates and are seeking a reduction so how can we now be justified in putting this extra taxation to them, as that is how it will be seen? How can it be justified to put this extra burden on employers? I do not see how this will make a difference in the public system, and the Exchequer will still have to pay illness benefit. The private sector will be affected.

Currently, there is such a significant backlog in applications for social welfare that it is causing distress and hardship among the public. One lady applied for an invalidity pension last March and to date her application has not been dealt with, the Department officials indicating that they want to deal with people whose disability benefit is running out or who have no other income. She is constantly put to the back of the pile. This has a knock-on effect as she cannot apply for the household benefit package because she is waiting for a decision on the invalidity pension. Speaking of backlogs, there is a huge backlog in the appeals office as well. It is taking almost ten months for an appeal to be heard and this is causing a great deal of hardship. People are hurting. Perhaps the Minister will outline what proposals the Department has to deal with the backlogs.

I very much welcome the Minister's commitment not to cut the basic rates of social welfare in the forthcoming budget. People living on social welfare are among the poorest in society. It is a fact that the cost of maintaining a standard of living is higher in rural areas than in urban areas. If one has a child in third level education, for example, the cost to a person living in Kerry as opposed to a person living in Cork or Dublin is not comparable. A student from Kerry attending UCC or UCD will have to pay the cost of accommodation in addition to travel, which is crippling for parents and students alike. These costs are generally not applicable to students living in urban areas if they avail of the benefit of living at home.

Even the cost of the weekly shopping is higher in rural areas, as people do not have access to the larger shops or superstores. The small shops cannot compete with them so their prices are high. Many families have hidden costs, such as travel, which are higher in rural areas. For most people living in the country it necessitates the purchase of a car, which brings tax and insurance costs. People living on social welfare in rural areas have far more expenses than people living in urban areas. Most of them are barely making ends meet and it is imperative that they are left with as much disposable income as possible. It is important that those who can pay are made to pay, although I am aware that everybody must pay something. However, I trust that in the area of social welfare this can be done through reform and not through cutting the basic rates.

I very much welcome the steps the Minister has taken to tackle social welfare fraud. Programmes such as "Prime Time Investigates" show the extent of the fraud. I have a small suggestion that the Minister might consider. When somebody dies, their personal public service, PPS, number should appear on their death certificate. This would ensure there was no opportunity for others to use that PPS number for any other reasons.

Another issue that must be addressed is the domiciliary care allowance. This allowance should be extended to children up to the age of 18 years, as it causes untold hardship for both the parents and the child when they must apply for disability allowance at the age of 16 years. In most cases applicants are being refused disability allowance and inevitably their applications end up in the appeals office. If the domiciliary care allowance was paid up to the age of 18 years, the child would then be an adult and would probably have finished their schooling. Perhaps the Minister will consider that.