Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I stated at the outset that I understand members will have different views on this. What we are trying to achieve here is that, as a starting point, this scheme will cover the three waiting days before eligibility for illness benefit kicks in, and that can kick-in for two years thereafter. I want the members to bear that in mind as we have this discussion.

The Tánaiste has been very clear on the medium-term plan to make sure employers know what their obligations will be. The statutory entitlement to sick pay will be phased in as part of a four-year plan and will initially be three days a year once the Bill is enacted and commenced. This will effectively fill the gap in coverage, as I said, caused by illness benefit waiting days. It is important that we close that gap at the outset. Closing the gap of current waiting days before being able to access illness benefit will help reduce the numbers of sick employees presenting for work.

This four-year plan takes account of the current economic climate and the existing financial pressures on businesses. We must bear in mind what businesses have been through for the past couple of years with Covid and what is now happening in relation to the war in Ukraine. The latter is putting extreme pressure on businesses. We want to get the balance right here with this legislation but it is also important that we try to protect those jobs that are there and give businesses a change to adjust to this scheme over a couple of years as it is being implemented. The number of days will increase incrementally, with the goal that employers will eventually cover the cost of ten sick days per year from year four.

We fully understand many businesses are struggling with additional costs because of the conflict in Ukraine, Brexit, our coming out of Covid and the disruption these have brought. That is why we have chosen to phase in the new right. While we all agree it is important to introduce this right, there has to be a balanced approach to it.

Amendment No. 16 would provide that the number of paid sick leave days could not be reduced below ten by any ministerial order. As statutory sick leave will be introduced at three days per year, this amendment would not align with the timeline of the scheme proposed.

Amendment No. 17 would not restrict the number of days by which statutory sick leave could increase in any given year. Subsection (2)(b)(ii) currently stipulates that the Minister may not increase the number of sick leave days by more than three in any 12-month period. This provides certainty to employers by ensuring that unexpectedly large increases in the number of sick leave days will not be introduced. This is a sensible approach that allows businesses to plan ahead and anticipate the potential cost increases, which are significant for many, certainly for SMEs.

Similarly, providing the Minister with the ability to increase the number of sick leave days by ten days, as per amendment No. 18, under any one order would be disproportionate and unfair to employers. Such a dramatic increase in coverage could have unintended negative consequences, with employers unable to afford the associated costs. Again, we have to bear in mind that it jeopardises jobs if we force too many costs on employers. We are trying to get the balance right. I ask the members to try to understand our approach and that there will be incremental growth over a four-year period. This, we believe, is balanced and fair, and recognises the circumstances we are in.