Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I note Members are on Committee Stage for amendment No. 1. Obviously, the Minister was obliged to change the Title because when the legislation was originally considered, it did not envisage legislating in this way for sick leave in the public service.

As the Minister says, it is enabling legislation.

To deal with amendment No. 16, I refer to section 58B(4) which in my view is instructive. It states: "In making regulations under the subsection the Minister shall have regard to...". Front loaded at the beginning is the need to limit the circumstances in which public service bodies can undertake the commitment of financial resources in making payments in cases in which they are unable to receive the benefit of the services of their public servants. That is reasonable, in my view. It refers to the resources available. Subsection 58B(4)(c) cites the obligations of the State under the treaty of stability, co-ordination and governance under economic and monetary union, while subsection 58B(4)(d) refers to the specification of conditions for an entitlement to be paid remuneration during a period of sick leave and the desirability of having in place a satisfactory means of verifying that the public servant concerned is ill, etc. - in other words, not pulling a sickie when one is not sick. It is only in subsection 58B(4)(e) that there is mention of the need to protect the health of public servants. Whatever about the decision to order it in that way, an employer has obligations under health and safety law, as do employees themselves for their own well-being, and I am certainly not advocating a situation where people abuse a system of sick leave, be it certified or uncertified. I understand the scale of the current Bill and I am convinced not just by arguments made by the Minister, but also by arguments from the workers' side that savings need to and can be made. I do not have an argument with the Minister on that point. I ask the Minister to give the House the most recent figures for the number of public servants on what would be termed long-term sick leave as this information could provide a sense of the scale of this situation.

I said this earlier and I promise I will not repeat it again after this. I do not like the idea of the Minister having possession of this kind of enabling legislation. I reiterate this is not personal to the Minister. In my view, it may be a step too far. Subsection 58B(4) instructs any would-be Minister or the current Minister of what he or she needs to have regard to. It is ordered in that way with the health of public servants almost as the last item in that section and this worries me even more.

I refer to the issue raised by Deputy Fleming about the social welfare payment. I draw the attention of the Minister to a point on which I ask for clarification. It comes from the Labour Court recommendation which refers to rehabilitation pay and a minimum payment equal to social protection rates for those who joined the public service before 1995. I ask the Minister to explain and clarify what this will mean for the regulations.

The point made about gender-proofing of this legislation can be made equally about most, if not all, legislation. I do not believe there is due regard for the impact on gender of many other measures. The Minister made, on the face of it, a reasonable remark that the legislation and the regulations would not discriminate between male and female workers. That is fair enough. However, that is easily got around by the simple reference to "pregnant workers". One of the sexes has the capacity to become pregnant and as of yet, bar scientific advancements, the other does not. There has to be the very specific reference to pregnant workers in this or any other legislation and certainly in the regulations. If the regulations did not take account of that, they would run against the existing legislation protecting pregnant workers but it would also be an obvious deficiency in any legislation.

I come now to the clincher. This Bill proposes cutting the amount of time to which workers are entitled to sick leave. I remind the Minister that pregnancy is not a sickness, but I refer to the example of a case of the baby blues, as the condition is called. It is not uncommon for workers who have been pregnant to have depression. Where in this specific instance is the worker situated with regard to sick leave? There is the issue of how the modest period of uncertified sick leave and certified sick leave is accommodated within the definition of critical illness. However, if the condition persists above and beyond the two years, which, sadly, can be the case, where does that leave that worker? The Minister is in charge and it is legitimate for him to ensure that provisions are not being abused. However, it would be a very bad turn if this scheme resulted in people whose illness was extended beyond the scope of what is envisaged by the Minister and who found themselves with no job to return to or who were forced out of their job. The nuance needs to be considered. It would have been preferable to have this discussion having had sight of the various regulations because much of what is speculation I presume would be resolved and set out for us.

The Minister referred to retrospection as being a look-back, which is a nice turn of phrase. He said, "We are changing the scheme going forward but then having a look back at the past". It does not really matter whether it is called retrospection or if another term is used. The fact is that leave which workers have legitimately taken under the existing regime will now be calculated under the regulation and the norms of a new trimmed down set of limits. I am not suggesting this would cause significant difficulty in many cases but I can see circumstances where it will cause a problem for the simple fact that the Minister is reducing the period of time and leave to which people are entitled.

I have spoken to the Minister many times on the issue of retrospection, generally about excessive pay and pension pots at the top of the tree.

The Minister has used arguments around property rights, contractual obligations, advice from the Attorney General and so on to state he could not tackle many of those pressing issues. It seems that on this matter the Attorney General takes a different view. She does not seem to be so hung-up on people's legitimate expectations or their contractual arrangement with the employer. In this instance it seems that can be set aside but there is precedent for that because that was also the case in respect of the financial emergency measures in the public interest legislation. I note that contradiction for the Minister. The Minister might respond to those points starting with the figures available to him because I would like to get a picture of long-term illness.

See this speech in context