Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of points. The legislation is designed to facilitate whatever Minister sits in this chair in the years ahead. We need to bear in mind that the number today is zero and that we are asking businesses and employers to adapt to a new statutory sick pay scheme, which they are paying for. It is only right and fair that we introduce it over a period of time. It is about the management of businesses. Some would say it is not about management, but we are trying to get the balance right. The measure does not favour any one sector or social partner over another; it is about achieving a balance that protects jobs, will continue to grow jobs and enable businesses to continue while recognising the benefits for everybody of having a statutory sick pay scheme. It is a matter of introducing it at a pace that is manageable.

What is proposed compares quite well with the arrangements in many European countries. The number of days varies from country to country. The majority have around ten days or fewer. Australia, New Zealand and Canada all have the ten days. The commitment by the Cabinet, as expressed by the Tánaiste in Dáil debates and discussions here, is to go to ten days over four years. The legislation does not cap that. There is no ambition capped either. There is flexibility for future Ministers to go beyond ten days if they so choose. In the legislation, we are asking that the Minister reflect on the circumstances in the country on any given day. The Minister must consult not only employers but also all social partners. This was expressly requested by this committee. It is written into the Bill.

The reason the measure was suggested for regulation, not legislation, is that this is the best way to adapt to any situation as a country. The members have been discussing here for nearly a year the permits legislation that I am trying to adapt and make changes to. Since the provisions are expressed in primary legislation rather than regulations, it is very hard for us to work with them and make any changes needed or recommended by most people here. If the provisions are in regulations, the Minister can adjust and make changes much more quickly on behalf of the country at the right time to reflect current conditions. That is why we are not over-prescribing in primary legislation. Primary legislation does not always work to the benefit of everybody.

On the matter of the three days, following the discussion in the very early stages of this in the Dáil a commitment was made by the Tánaiste, Deputy Varadkar, to introduce this legislation. Thereafter, there was consultation across all the Departments and among all the social partners. Members of this committee and many others went through all this. We fixed on an entitlement of three days to begin with to close the initial gap associated with the illness benefit because nobody gets anything for the first three days as matters stand. That was the most important gap that the Tánaiste wanted to close. The aim was to build on that thereafter. That is why we introduced the three days, as well as consultation with everybody.

It is proposed to have three days, moving to ten days within four years. We believe this is a fair and reasonable request of employers. Members should bear in mind that employers are paying for this. That must be understood and accepted. Future Ministers can decide to make changes to the proposal if they want, but this is what we are recommending at the moment.

I hope members will understand that our job in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is to get the balance right to protect workers at work, prevent the unnecessary spread of illness, encourage people to stay at home when unwell, try to cover the cost of their staying at home, and recognise that employers of all sizes have to implement this scheme as a statutory sick pay scheme.