Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his contribution. We spoke about this Bill before and I have reflected on his comments earlier today about the nature of Government intervention and universality in reference to free GP care. It is something on which I agree with him. As referenced by other speakers, a previous Government introduced free GP care for children on the basis of universality, on the understanding that members of our society who pay their taxes in that society should feel that everybody should benefit from it, regardless of background or income. It allows everybody to feel as if there is no myth of a squeezed middle, of those who solely benefit and of those who shoulder the famous tax burden. That is why I agree with the Minister's earlier comment on the nature of universality.

When we speak about the cost of living, as my colleague, Deputy Bacik, said earlier, we in the Labour Party constantly say that in Ireland there are expenses that are not expenses anywhere else in the Europe or that an average European citizen relocating here would find to be quite unusual. GP care or GP visits are among them. People relocating from the North to the South have to get used the idea of putting a hand in a pocket for a GP visit and other things such as schoolbooks, etc. The ambition from the Government to move to a universal system, something that was achieved by a Government referenced earlier in terms of free GP care for children, is something that will go in tandem with the provisions in this Bill as time moves on.

The Minister will know that at the beginning of the pandemic, in September 2020, Senator Sherlock of the Labour Party put forward a Private Members' Bill to recognise that not having a statutory sick pay scheme at the start of a pandemic was a major gap in our legislation. In fairness to the Tánaiste, he acknowledged that at the time and said he would prioritise it. Sure enough, he is true to his word and has produced the goods in the form of this Bill, although we obviously will have issues with it and will want to improve it. ICTU also has paid tribute to the collaborative nature of the process. This is an improved Bill but as others have said, it certainly has a way to go.

It is unfortunate that it appears the Government is ignoring some of the very clear recommendations, made on a cross-party basis, from the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment on certified sick leave and the enormous issues faced by low- and middle-wage workers in paying for and accessing timely GP services. I remind the House that, as stated in an earlier discussion, Ireland has a disproportionately low-pay economy. An OECD statistic showed that 23% of Irish workers are on low pay. In fact, about 40% of younger workers, that is, those aged under 30, are in insecure work. Insecure work leads to insecure accommodation and all sorts of other insecurities. Health insecurity is another issue, and that is why the right to statutory sick pay for those workers is so essential.

The reality is that a low-paid worker could end up paying more to a GP than what he or she would get back in terms of 70% of daily pay for being out sick. For a minimum wage worker, that would be a certain reality. The Government is failing to protect and look after workers on the minimum wage. While I appreciate that the Tánaiste has to balance the frustrations or concerns an employer would have, we in the Labour Party feel the most vulnerable person in the transaction would be a low-paid worker who does not ever feel as if he or she has enough power to make his or her case. That is why we are here to make the case for those workers.

Unfortunately, the Bill is still a far cry from what the Labour Party proposed in September 2020 on foot of appeals by workers' representatives, on behalf of meat plant and early years workers, in SIPTU and ICTU who sought the provision of a sick pay scheme for all. The Bill does not represent a right to access sick pay from the start of employment. Seasonal workers, early years educators, such as early childhood care and education, ECCE, workers, and others employed for part of the year would be forced to have worked for 13 weeks before they would be entitled paid sick leave. ECCE workers are typically employed on 38-week contracts. Therefore, every September every worker would have to wait 13 weeks before getting paid sick leave. That is not right or fair. As has been referenced, it has been described as a major flaw in the Bill by Patricia King and others in SIPTU, such as Laura Bambrick, who have asked that the word "continuous" be omitted from the Bill. I am quite sure that when we debate Committee and Report Stages of the Bill we can work on that in a collaborative fashion.

The Bill fails to ensure that workers will not be out of pocket. The Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment recommended that a minimum rate of pay be introduced. From the Government's statement last week, it is not clear that the Bill does that. Serious questions remain about the reluctance of the Government to hardwire into the Bill the provision of ten days of sick leave that is due to be paid in 2025. There are real concerns that the three days the Government will make available from this year will remain at the mercy of ministerial regulation and that is not acceptable.

In conclusion, sometimes we in this Oireachtas do our best to be as unco-operative as possible. We often play the role of the pantomime villain but that is not a fair reflection of what genuinely happens in these Houses. The Labour Party made a recommendation to the Government in September 2020. The Government recognised that it needed to be done and is now bringing forward legislation. It is unfortunate that Bill was not introduced before now, when the pandemic appears to a large degree to be over. That said, with goodwill, we are now at a stage where it is to be hoped we can bring it into law. I noted the determination of the Tánaiste to work with Opposition parties to ensure we can have this in place by the middle of the year. I think that is the phrase the Tánaiste used. That kind of energy probably needed to be there from September 2020. If it had been, far more workers could have availed of sick leave provisions as they worked their way through the pandemic.

The points I have made in respect of the word "continuous" and low-paid workers remain but the point on which I began is the one on which I will finish. In the context of the current debate on the cost of living, there are certain expenses in Ireland that would be unusual to a person relocating here from another country. In most European countries, and certainly on our neighbouring island, it is considered the role of the state to pay for visits to a general practitioner, GP, and to protect its citizens in that regard. To even have to consider the cost of such a visit, regardless of one's income, is something people in the North or in Britain never do. That is the kind of lesson we have to take from this pandemic. We welcome the fact that the Bill has been brought forward, although it can be improved, and I will certainly work with the Tánaiste on it, but it is only one part of a wider discussion on how we deal with sickness and healthcare, and what the State provides in that regard. The Labour Party will always argue that we need a bigger State, more rights and basic provisions that are available in other jurisdictions. It changes the way people interact with their employer and the State.

I agree with the Tánaiste on the ethic and principle of universality, as does the Labour Party, including Senator Sherlock who in September 2020 proposed the Bill that kick-started this debate in the Houses. I again thank the Tánaiste for taking on the legislation and bringing it to this point, but we want to improve it so there is balance for the vulnerable worker rather than always for the employer who is trying to pick holes in the rights of his or her employee.

See this speech in context