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

I have a couple of observations and comments. We are not opposing Deputy O'Reilly's amendment but saying it is covered by the existing wording. She will recognise that herself. We have made changes on foot of this committee's recommendations before.

Deputy Paul Murphy wants to exclude employer representative bodies. He is asking for the provision in this regard to be deleted. I could not condone that; that would be illogical. We are trying to bring forward legislation that is balanced. The Deputy said he is a champion of the employee and takes credit for that, but our job in government is to strike a balance and ensure there are jobs for employees. It is a two-way approach.

I do not apologise for acknowledging that employers will have to absorb the cost. It is a public health measure. It will protect everybody and gives sick workers the option to stay at home rather than going to work because they cannot afford not to. That is what the legislation is being introduced for. Employers do not pay for such a scheme at present but they will be paying for it. We have to recognise that, and I do not apologise for doing so.

We all agree that it is appropriate to introduce a statutory sick-pay scheme. Most employers I talk to acknowledge and accept that, as mentioned by Deputies Shanahan and Bruton, but they recognise they are trying to run businesses with massive costs and that have seen cost increases over the past couple of years. Employers accept these schemes if they are fair, reasonable and manageable and if the cost can be absorbed over time. We are trying to introduce the scheme over several years to allow employers time to adapt and, in some cases, change prices. However, they have to remain competitive. I sat with Deputy Bruton across the road back in 2011 and 2012 when we had an unemployment rate of 16% or 17%. Everybody you spoke to wanted a job. Of course we all want jobs with good terms and conditions, and we are constantly striving to have improvements in this regard, but we also want employers to create those jobs, take the risk, have the ambition to go further and take on international markets. However, they have to be competitive to do that.

Profit levels vary from business to business; there is no doubt about that. Some employers make great profits while others just barely cover their costs and pay their own wages. We have to recognise that. This legislation will apply across the board for all employers. For a small shop on the corner employing 20 people, this legislation could add a cost of €5,000 or €6,000 per year. We have to bear that in mind. Prices may be passed on, profits may be reduced, and affected businesses may become less competitive. There is a combination. We are trying to introduce legislation that is balanced for everybody and introduces good pay and conditions and a statutory sick pay scheme that is needed and recognised. We are an outlier in Europe – no one is denying that – but it is a matter of bringing in the scheme in a phased way that is manageable for everybody and does not jeopardise well-fought-for jobs. Everybody here, across all Departments, has worked to create an environment that is conducive to job creation. We must recognise that at the end of the day, the cost proposed is an additional one and that it will be imposed in a few months when we finish this work. We must also recognise that the majority of employers want to do the right thing by their staff. In the majority of cases, they do that and accommodate sick pay schemes or other informal arrangements at their own expense. However, the Bill proposes a statutory scheme that will have to be implemented across every place of employment. The balance is right. I disagree with Deputy Paul Murphy that we should delete the reference to employer representatives. That is totally imbalanced. We are trying to achieve the right balance here.