Dáil debates

Wednesday, 24 October 2012

Statutory Sick Pay: Motion (Resumed) [Private Members]

 

6:55 pm

Photo of Dara MurphyDara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Private Members' motion. We should acknowledge that no clear decision has yet been taken in this regard. Perhaps it is one of the few debates where there is space for an ideological difference, and there is an ideological difference. We must acknowledge that the country has been put in a remarkably difficult position economically and Ministers seeking to reduce spending by in the region of €2.25 billion while finding an increase of €1.25 billion in income will find it difficult to come up with measures to secure these figures.

One of the most crucial sectors in the economy at this time is the small and medium enterprise sector, especially the indigenous sector. The country has done sterling work to continue to secure significant amounts of foreign direct investment. Our low corporation tax rate, our workforce and our access to the eurozone through our membership of the euro area have all led to significant job announcements and significant optimism.

The country has been less successful in protecting, encouraging and supporting small entrepreneurs, Irish people, to get to a point where they can set up and establish their own businesses. Let us consider the density of employment created by small business. Were our small businesses in a position to employ another one or two people, we would be truly on a march to economic recovery. I fully respect what the Minister has said and her ambition to reduce her expenditure. However, small businesses are already carrying a significant burden.

It is accurate to state that what is being proposed is not common across the euro area or the working world. Given the differential between the sick pay regimes in the public and private sectors, I would support in the first instance trying to adjust the percentages and the numbers in the former through a variety of schemes before looking at the small and medium-size enterprises.

The Government has done some excellent work on PRSI and the microfinance scheme to encourage people to set up of businesses and to employ. I would urge the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, to look at this and to realise that there will be savings to her Department in reducing the number on unemployment benefit and in them paying taxes through their work. That debate is ongoing. I heard the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, and the Minister of State, Deputy Perry who, I suppose, share some of the concerns of the Small Firms Association and IBEC. These bodies have valid concerns. That is not to say that their concerns are any different from the large number of groups in the country which do not want to see their budgets cut and who do not want to pay any more towards economic recovery, particularly the self-employed. We all meet people in our constituency offices who find it very difficult to secure social welfare payments. Many of them have costs, such as loans. I myself come from this sector. Most who are self-employed and who run small businesses have no interest in being part of the social welfare system. They only require Government and State agencies to allow them the freedom to earn and to work. There may be other more preferential areas where we can look at securing savings in social welfare expenditure.

This is an ongoing debate within the Government and Cabinet. The motion is premature and largely unhelpful. At the same time, from my own point of view, I would seek to support the enterprise side of the argument.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.