Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not anticipate we would be discussing this issue here on 21 February because the impression was given that it was off the agenda. It was an initial proposal by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Burton, which was to have been debated in government and withdrawn, presumably at the insistence of the Minister, Deputy Bruton, actively encouraged by some of his backbenchers, but apparently it seems to be back on the agenda. This has perturbed business spokesmen and spokeswomen all over the country.

What is being proposed will impose horrendous extra costs on businesses that are already struggling, particularly small businesses. Sick pay is paid out of the social insurance fund. The employers of this country for the last year for which we have figures, 2010, contributed more than €5 billion to the social insurance fund and now they are being asked to pay on the double.

We have heard various statements that the Government is obsessed with employment, everything it does is geared towards creating employment and every policy initiative is to be employment-orientated. If that is the case, can the Minister tell me why the Government has not done anything to date about issues such as commercial rates, which are a guaranteed job destroyer? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support that. Why has the Government done nothing about upward only rents despite its pre-election promises? If there is a constitutional issue, it can be easily sorted out by adding an extra question for the next referendum. Why is the Government allowing insurance costs, energy costs and utility costs to rise? Why did the Government decide to make the cost of making people redundant, which affects firms downsizing to preserve their business, two and half time what it costs in the United Kingdom and very uncompetitive vis-À-vis the rest of Europe? If the Government is so obsessed with employment, why has this proposal come back on the agenda, and what is its current status? That is the reason I raised this issue today - I want clear answers. I am not alone in my anxiety about the matter. To quote a number of the Minister's party backbenchers at random, Deputy Charles Flanagan described this move as "anti-business and anti-jobs", while Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor, as late as this morning on Newstalk FM, stated that more debate was needed and that businesses feel this will be an expense too far. I agree with those Deputies. It is an expense too far. The Minister will realise, having produced a 170-page document on job creation, that much remains to be done to remove the barriers to job creation, but that is what we should be doing. We should be removing the barriers to job creation, not putting more in place in the shape of further costs for small and struggling businesses.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Further consultation on this issue was signalled in the budget speech of the Minister for Finance. As the Deputy knows, illness benefit comes from the social insurance fund, which is funded by PRSI contributions from employers and employees and by the Government and administered by the Department of Social Protection. Exchequer spending on illness benefit more than doubled in the ten years from 2001 to 2011, from €330 million to €876 million, while the number claiming went up by 40%. Policy responsibility for the administration of illness benefit falls within the remit of the Minister for Social Protection, who held the first initial consultative forum meeting on her proposals yesterday to consider the feasibility and potential impacts of introducing a statutory sick pay scheme in Ireland. This is very much a first step towards considering a range of issues that need to be examined in detail before any proposals can be suggested or progressed to possible implementation.

The Minister clearly indicated that this is the beginning of a consultative process and that nothing has been decided yet. Forfás attended the Minister's initial consultative forum yesterday and commented that any proposal that would increase costs for business would be of concern, and that further work was required to assess the potential costs of this proposal for enterprise, how these costs might be borne across enterprise sectors, what implications these costs might have for employment, and what other actions could be taken to achieve the required goals.

I have also seen the initial reactions of business representative bodies to the proposals and I understand their concerns about the cost a statutory sick pay scheme could impose on businesses. For this reason, the issue of increased costs needs to be more fully researched and considered.

The OECD has raised concerns that the duration of illness benefit in Ireland is currently two years, although the average in the OECD is a year or less. It also noted that many people with frequent sickness absences tend to drift from sickness into the disability benefit system, which is bad for the individuals and families concerned. A related worrying trend that was commented on at the forum yesterday is that more and more young people are going from the sickness benefit system to the disability system. We need to ensure our young people can find suitable employment in the economy, with any disability needs facilitated, and that they are productive members of our society.

The Deputy also raised many other issues, including the redundancy scheme. These are really the subject of another debate, but I must point out that the State picking up 60% of the redundancy costs of employers is not something that is common in other countries. There is no such facility in most countries, and Ireland is unusual in having to shoulder the cost of redundancy in that way. Clearly, the Government's aim is not to fund redundancy, which involves the loss of employment, but to seek to support schemes that create and sustain employment. As the Deputy acknowledges, the priority of the Government is to support the creation and protection of employment, which is a major challenge to our community.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the final point made by the Minister, what I am saying is that there are different redundancy schemes in different countries. If a firm in Ireland wants to downsize and must make a certain number of people redundant in order to survive, it will cost the firm two and a half times per person more than it would in the United Kingdom, which is our nearest neighbour and competitor. That is an anti-jobs measure in anyone's language.

The Minister said there was consultation about a range of issues. The issue of making employers carry more of the burden for sick pay is firmly back on the agenda. Employers and business people from one end of the country to the other - a wide and representative section of business - have been contacting us to express their concerns. This is creating uncertainty at a time when we need certainty. It raises the spectre of higher costs in business when we need to be reducing costs.

Where does the Minister stand on the issue himself? Surely, as Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, he is opposed in principle to the idea of loading extra costs onto job creators. The Minister referred to various studies, consultations and so on. He will be aware that Forfás has already done a report, last November, on the exact effect of such a proposal on jobs and competitiveness. Can the Minister tell us what that report says, or will he undertake to publish it so we can see for ourselves?

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would certainly be concerned about any measure that would increase costs for employers. That is a view I hold personally. Equally, however, I recognise that the management of very high illness claims within our welfare system is something that needs to be addressed. Many of those problems are most acute in the public service, not in the private sector. Figures suggest that absenteeism in the public service is double that in the private sector.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At least.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no doubt that the issue of people drifting into long-term disability or invalidity benefit is also a source of worry. There are issues such as how we manage sickness and how we can ensure people take up opportunities, even if they are receiving sick payments, rather than drifting into long-term reliance on social welfare. A consultative process is under way. The contribution that was made by Forfás signalled our concerns about employment. Job creation is extremely important and scarce at the moment, and we need to do everything we can to nurture it. I recognise also that there are issues with regard to the management of budgets, and we need to examine the actions that can be taken across the system to manage this better.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about last November's Forfás report? Will the Minister publish that?

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Any report that has an input into an ongoing discussion at Government level is not normally published, so I do not intend to-----

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Discussions have two sides.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Interactions between an agency and a Minister engaged in a consultative process are not necessarily published. I do not believe this documentation, which has an input into the consultative process, should be published at this stage. However, I will answer questions for the Deputy at any point.