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

My point is that the Minister is only coming here now, 18 months after the Labour Court ruling. The original intentions in going to the Labour Court were good, but the Minister has mismanaged the situation in the past 18 months. There is confusion about aspects of the measure and there have been delays. In addition, the Labour Court will sit next week on specific items relating to this matter. Some 18 months ago, the Labour Court recommended that the proposals should take effect from 1 January 2014. In addition, I tabled a parliamentary question on this matter on 28 November, which is only two weeks ago. In his written reply, the Minister said that the finalisation of the protocol was recently the subject of conciliation talks at the Labour Relations Commission, which were aimed at securing agreement as soon as possible to facilitate the introduction of the new sick leave arrangements from 1 January 2014. The Minister put that on the Dáil record only a fortnight ago.

When these amendments were being announced last week, the briefing note from the Government Whip's office to the Opposition Whips was prepared on 4 December. Just last week, the Government Chief Whip told us that the new measures were being introduced on 1 January 2014. He said they were a key deliverable of the Government's reform programme.

The 1 January 2014 date has been announced three times. We had it as recently as last week from the Chief Whip's office and from the Minister's written reply two weeks ago, yet we now find that this is not the case. We are now told that the Labour Court will be dealing with the issue next week. The Minister expects us to pass legislation today in respect of rules and conditions on sick pay for 290,000 public servants and their families while these matters have yet to be decided in the Labour Court next week. Not only is it disrespectful to the Labour Court for us to be doing this today, before it has finished its considerations, but it is also disrespectful to ask the Houses of the Oireachtas to pass regulations which the Minister cannot be specific about until the Labour Court has fully adjudicated.

I understand it is dealing with issues such as critical, disability, pregnancy-related and mental health illness.

On mental health, the opening paragraph of the Department's critical illness protocol, to which the Minister, Deputy Howlin referred, states: "Therefore, when an individual becomes incapacitated as a result of critical illness or serious physical injury and has supporting medical evidence.....". While "physical injury" is specifically mentioned in the protocol no mention is made of mental illness. I do not believe adequate provision is being made in this regard. It would have been far more appropriate to be more inclusive in the terminology dealing with this issue. It is no wonder, when this is the line being taken by the Department, that this matter is back before the Labour Court.

Neither the Minister nor I know what will happen in the Labour Court next week. The Minister in ramming the legislation through this House during the next few hours is asking us to support something in regard to which we do not yet know the outcome. I have tabled an amendment to the Bill to the effect that some of these matters be addressed by way of regulation. As everybody knows a regulation does not come into effect until 21 days after it has been laid before the Houses. I acknowledge that the Minister has accepted the principle of my amendment and has tabled his own amendment in this regard. The Government Chief Whip in saying last week that the scheme would come into effect on 1 January next obviously does not understand the regulatory process. The Minister in reply to a parliamentary question tabled by me on 28 November also said this scheme would come into effect on 1 January, which means he thought he could rush this through by way of circular without the need for regulation. He now knows this cannot be done. The regulations cannot come into effect until 21 sitting days after they had been laid before the Houses, which equates to seven weeks in terms of Dáil sittings. If they are not published until some time in the New Year it will be well into March before the scheme comes into effect.

I do not have a problem with the date on which the scheme will come into effect. However, I do have a problem with the fact that up to recently the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and parliamentary system were indicating it would come into effect on 1 January next when they should have known that this was physically and legally not possible, which meant everybody was being led astray. As the scheme will not come into effect on 1 January next there is no rush in terms of the passage of the legislation. The Minister should await the outcome of the Labour Court process, at which time we will all know the full implications in this regard. I ask that the Minister defer this motion and the legislation until we know the outcome of the Labour Court process. I cannot support the hamfisted manner in which the Minister is pushing this through.

The Minister has made a virtue of pre-legislative scrutiny. There has been no pre-legislative scrutiny on this matter which affects sick pay entitlements for 290,000 public servants and their families. The Department should have engaged with Members on it in advance of its publication and representatives of the public sector trade unions and of the taxpayer who is paying for this should have come before the a committee to brief us on it. This is another example of rushed legislation in terms of the few hours being allowed for debate on it. This may explain the reason this legislation was not gender, equality or poverty proofed. I would expect nothing more from a Labour Party Minister who supported the decision earlier this year in the budget to reduce maternity benefit and to, for the first time, tax maternity benefit. The Government is now attacking low paid workers in the public service, in particular women.

See this speech in context