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

Exactly. In other words, a person who is on half pay during her pregnancy and the clock runs out on her, she will not drop below that. The cost of doing this would not be all that much, that is, someone who commences her pregnancy-related illness on full pay should not be dropped to the half-pay rate during that particular specific illness. It might be for only two or three months or a similarly short period. In other words, there already is a mechanism for someone who already is on half pay not to drop off the system and my suggestion is such people should not be dropped from the higher step to the intermediate step during this period. This is a practical suggestion to which the Minister might give consideration.

I have a second practical suggestion for the Minister to simplify matters for the employer before the statutory instrument is made. Illness benefit is based on one's contributions and is not means tested. Therefore, the amount is fixed at €188 per week if one is entitled to it. However, the qualified adult allowance is means tested, as is the qualified child allowance. I accept it is beyond the remit of the employer to know the personal circumstances of each family. My simple suggestion pertains to a person who is on half pay, who happened to be on €30,000 but whose pay dropped to €15,000 and who now gets €300 per week. If the cheque from Department of Social Protection comes in at a higher figure, simply give back the balance to that person. I simply suggest a profit should not be made by the Department or the employer through getting more in illness benefit from the Department of Social Protection than it actually is paying out to the person on half pay. If the cheque rolls in and it is for €100 more than the Department is paying out, top it back up in order that the person gets the benefit. This is the principle that already underlines the other arrangements, whereby the Minister stated people will drop to and not below their personal rate. In other words, there is a figure there and the Department has no calculations to make. When the Department of Social Protection has done its bit and has started to send in a higher cheque, an employer that discerns it is higher should simply refund the balance. It would be somewhat perverse for an employer to be making a profit, that is, getting more from the Department of Social Protection during a person's illness than it actually was paying out to the person on sick pay. I believe the Minister can understand this proposal. The Minister might be able to put forward a formula in this regard because I do not believe for a second it is his intention that his Department should make a profit on someone being out sick through getting more from social protection than it pays out in sick pay. I believe all Members are in agreement in this regard. The Minister should attempt to find a simple way to do this, which would take the employer out of the operation.

I have one final comment, to which the Minister may have responded earlier. In his contribution this morning, the Minister stated: "It is important to note that in overall terms, the new scheme will provide access to some form of income for public service employees who find themselves out of work due to illness or injury for a period of two years in total." Is that figure of two years the current figure or is it the new, reduced figure? What will happen at the end of the two years? Will the chief medical officer tell the person concerned to collect his or her cheque and go? The Minister should outline what will happen at the end of the two year period and I ask him to consider my two suggestions on pregnancy-related illness and for employers not to make a profit out of the illness benefit paid.

See this speech in context