Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion which is to introduce a new sick leave scheme in the public service. The scheme is being included in the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointment) (Amendment) Bill 2013. Everybody should accept that the cost of sick leave is a major issue for the Irish taxpayer. The cost of sick leave in the public service is higher than in the private sector and the taxpayer pays the bill. It is important, therefore, that, in line with everything in Irish society, there should be cost reductions in this excessive bill. I do not know where the Minister got his estimate but it is substantial in any event.

Before dealing with the main points I have prepared, I wish to raise some of the points from the Minister's contribution a few minutes ago when he said:

Although the new sick leave arrangements could be applied in some sectors, such as the Civil Service, by administrative circulars, the Office of the Attorney General has advised that legislation is required to ensure that the new public service sick leave scheme can be applied across the public service, particularly as many public servants have employment contracts that are governed by contract law.

The Attorney General, therefore, has advised that legislation is required. Towards the end of his contribution, the Minister said that "in the interests of transparency and equity" it is important that he prepare the regulations. He is doing so, however, because the Attorney General said it is the appropriate way to go. I do not accept the Minister's attempt to make a virtue out of the fact that he is doing something, to quote his words, "in the interests of transparency and equity" when he is being forced to do it on legal advice from the Attorney General. The Minister's script is contradictory on that issue because while he says it is in the interests of transparency and equity, he is doing this for sound legal reasons. That is why I said, in the first place, that there should be regulations to deal with this matter.

There is a two year period in total during which people will be able to receive some pay at the end of the temporary rehabilitative payment, which comes in lieu of pension pay. Is that two year period a new figure? I understand the Minister is talking about excluding the Defence Forces from these regulations because these matters will be dealt with under the Defence Forces regulations, and I accept that. However, members of the Garda Síochána understood that they would also be excluded, but I see no mention of it in the Minister's script. They made a strong case for exclusion and some of them understood that their case had been accepted.

In essence, the arrangements before us are to make changes to the sick leave mechanism across the public service from six months of full pay to six months on half pay. After that period, people will go on to what was known as the pension rate of pay, but is now to be called rehabilitation pay. There is general support for this measure which aims to reduce costs. One way of achieving this is to reduce the amount of payments from six months of full pay to three months on full pay and three months on half pay. That is a major, significant and substantial change. I support the general principle involved. It would be less than honest, and it would be unfair to the Irish taxpayer, if I were to oppose the principle of some reduction in the public sector sick pay bill. Every private company is doing it, so there is nothing new in this. Nobody in Irish society is exempt from trying to make some cost savings, so I support the principle involved. These savings for the taxpayer are to be achieved by the change from six months to three months. However, it is important that a small number of limited, exceptional, critical-illness cases can still be dealt with in the system. I will revert to that point later.

I wish to thank the Minister's departmental officials for the excellent briefing they provided to me on this matter on Tuesday afternoon. I will now deal with some of the reasons that I have difficulties with the motion before us. First of all, as the Minister has said, the issue is going to the Labour Court next week over some minor aspects. However, this was before the Labour Court ruling on 19 July 2012 when Mr. Kevin Duffy, the court's chairman, signed the agreement. At the time, Mr. Duffy said that subject to the necessary legislation being enacted, the proposals and recommendations should take effect from 1 January 2014. The Minister has had 18 months to get his act together and get this measure in place in a more open and transparent way through the Oireachtas, instead of bringing in a motion at this late stage. Clearly, this motion is not in order with the original legislation. It is rushing things to come here at this stage, a week before Christmas, with this legislation.

See this speech in context