Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to have an opportunity to say a few words on this subject and I am delighted that the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, is here this evening because I am sure that in his heart and soul, he knows that this is completely misguided. Having worked for years creating employment, I always argue that reduction in costs done in a painless, non-bureaucratic way, is more important than getting grants. The awarding of a grant involves applications and delays. However, if some initiative was able to cut the basic cost of employing people, there was an immediate saving with no added bureaucracy.

When this Government came into office it was going to have a great jobs budget. Of course, it turned out to be a damp squib of a jobs initiative. Since then, when the unemployment figures and the outward migration figures are factored in, this Government has failed abysmally to create jobs.

I do not believe that governments directly create jobs because in the reality of private sector employment, one is dependent on people to come up with the ideas and to create the jobs. We do not have a command economy, thanks be to God. However, governments can make circumstances that are either conducive to job creation or not. This is one plan that if carried through would put an extra burden of €89 million on employers.

The Taoiseach is the leader of the Minister of State's party and I hope he will speak to the Minister and to the Tánaiste. With regard to absenteeism in small private sector businesses, I define absenteeism as an employee not turning up for work because he or she does not feel like working. The rate of absenteeism is very low, as is Monday morning sickness, in small enterprises. In most small enterprises where there is a good relationship between the employer and the employees, all of them know that their future survival depends on them all making a contribution. In most such cases, it is more of a team than a boss-worker relationship.

I ask what is the Minister trying to stop. Is it the case she has no other way of making the cuts and this looks like a handy way? I suspect it is the latter. There is no social gain out of this proposal. I refer to the very low rate of absenteeism - at 2.6% - in small private sector employment, against 3.6% for companies employing more than 500. It is understandable why the figure is higher. The public service has even higher levels of absenteeism. Where abnormally high levels of absenteeism exist, then I agree action should be taken and there should be an examination of the reasons for that absenteeism in order to eliminate it. However, there should not be a burden placed on the employer because this will inhibit the creation of employment which is also urgently needed for the physical well-being well as the financial well-being of our people.

I wish to deal with two specific actions which could be considered as a means of saving money.

The first is to make individuals responsible for the first five days of sick leave. It could be argued that, under this proposal, the current period would be extended by only two days and this would be of little gain. We all know that if someone visits his or her general practitioner with a cold on a Thursday, the automatic reaction is to write a medical or sick certificate for an entire week. In many cases, the period from Thursday to Monday morning is more than sufficient to allow people to recover and to return to work on Monday. In smaller, private sector workplaces, people would return to work in such circumstances without any long-term effect on their health because they feel obliged to try to return to their employment as soon as possible.

People have a tendency to choose round numbers and one week is a round number in this case. I suspect that if we made individuals responsible for the first five days of sick leave, they would ensure any medical certificate provided by a general practitioner would be for two days in circumstances where the weekend was approaching. They would not miss work on the following Monday and Tuesday if it were clear they would have recovered by the end of the weekend. Frequently, people need two days off before returning to work, whereas the norm for doctors is to provide a medical certificate for an entire week. Most people would testify that this is the case. However, many doctors do not consider the consequences of this practice.

Departmental records show that a significant number of sick leave claims are for two days. A great deal of public service time is required to deal with these claims. While I was Minister, I had available to me a figure on the savings that would be achieved by extending the current period of two days to five days. The Minister of State may ask the reason I did not make the necessary change. I was informed by officials at the time that an EU regulation prevented me from making such a change. Unfortunately, I was not in the Department for long enough to ascertain whether, in circumstances such as those prevailing at present, the regulation in question could be changed on the basis that it does not take account of human behaviour such as the tendency of doctors to provide medical certificates for one week. It is possible to make this change and it would not impose an unwarranted burden on employees. In many cases, the two days normally taken at the end of a five-day medical certificate would not be taken.

I used to be annoyed by another practice that is common in the public service. If a person has a medical certificate for one month and feels well enough to return to work after three weeks, he or she is precluded from doing so on the basis that liability issues would arise if he or she were to become sick again. I assure Deputies that a person in the private sector with a medical certificate for a month who felt well after two weeks would ignore such issues and return to work. Some of the absenteeism in the public service is caused by current rules, including those pertaining to the number of sick days that can be taken without a medical certificate. Steps must be taken to address this problem because it is not fair that people can take sick leave willy-nilly, leaving those who work hard and always turn up for work to carry the can. The majority of public servants do not abuse the system.

As I stated, certain changes could be made and we have provided the Minister with an appropriate vehicle for doing so, namely, the Croke Park agreement. A number of simple changes could generate savings. As our spokesperson, Deputy Calleary, pointed out, the kite flown by the Minister is deterring employers from employing people. I am aware of the Minister of State's commitment to and involvement in small business. As someone with experience in this area, I ask him to inform the Minister that her proposal to add €89 million per annum to the cost of employing people is exactly the opposite of what she should be doing. What we need to do, as the Fine Gael Party consistently preached while in opposition, is to make the country more competitive. If the systems in place in other countries are not as competitive as our system, so be it. What we need is a margin of competitiveness that places us ahead of the competition, rather than taking steps to make it harder and more expensive to employ people.

See this speech in context