Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill. I fully support workers’ rights to statutory sick pay. The fact this country has never had a statutory sick pay scheme needs to change. One positive element of this Bill is that it starts to bring about change in this area. However, it must be viewed very much as a start because we have a long way to go if it is to be in any way adequate. In preparing to speak on this Bill, I was thinking about my time working in London, England, in 1988. At that time, I was entitled to five weeks' sick pay with my employer from the day I started the employment. That was a long time ago now but here in Ireland we are only talking about introducing a statutory sick pay scheme now. That is a big problem. We are one of the few countries in Europe not to have mandatory sick pay and I am glad this Bill intends to introduce it.

The current illness benefit scheme does not cover employees for their first three days of illness and so those who are sick for less than three days are forced to face the consequence of taking a cut to their wage, which is not acceptable. This unfortunately causes people to come into work despite being sick, which is not only unsafe for the person who is sick, but also for their co-workers. It is disappointing that it took the Covid pandemic to force people to realise this fact but I am glad the issue is finally being addressed. One of the few benefits of the pandemic is that people have started to think about this. They are seeing that workers need these benefits and that providing them results in an ongoing benefit for wider society and for employers.

We constantly hear employers saying they cannot afford the costs and so cannot do this, that or the other. This will actually benefit the workforce as a whole. It will also benefit employers and our society as a whole. Most people in my town of Killybegs and in every other town in the country are low-paid employees. If they are given the benefit of a sick pay scheme, they will be able to contribute and spend that money so that it can go out into wider society, which will benefit other employers who pay low wages to their employees. This sick pay will circulate right across the board. I know it a bizarre thought but an employer who has respect for his workers, who pays them a reasonable wage and who has a sick pay scheme in place actually benefits from that because the workers feel they are accepted and wanted by their employer rather than being seen as a cost burden. The biggest problem we have in this State is that employers feel they have some kind of divine right and that employees are a cost burden they should not have to put up with. The reality is that employers will not have a successful business if they do not have good workers and employees. The way to get good employees is to treat them with a bit of respect. Many employees and employers across this country have to learn that.

An issue with this Bill is that, unless amended, term-time and seasonal workers will have to repeatedly build up their entitlement to sick pay, leaving them without coverage for three months each working year. The 13 weeks’ continuous service with an employer required before an entitlement to sick leave commences will leave hundreds of thousands of mostly women, rural workers and foreign-born essential workers employed in low-paid jobs, who routinely have their service broken by their employer, without coverage for three months each year. That is wrong and should be addressed. This would affect many people in my constituency of Donegal and particularly in my own town of Killybegs. We rely on seasonal work and a significant number of people in this area have seasonal jobs such as fishing, working in the fish factories and hospitality jobs. These people should also be entitled to statutory sick pay just like everyone else. We need to make sure that holes in this legislation are addressed.

Another issue I have with the Bill is the fact that it will put the sole responsibility for payment of sick pay on the employer rather than putting any of this responsibility on the State. I wonder if the intention of this Bill is to spare the State some costs rather than to strengthen employees' rights to sick pay. While it will not make a difference in the first year, because illness benefit does not come into effect until people have been off for three days, when employers are paying ten days' sick pay, will it be the case that illness benefit will not come into effect until after ten days? That was proposed previously by the former Minister, Joan Burton. She proposed an increase in the waiting time to five days but that was rowed back on as a result of opposition. It is obviously the intention that employers will have to pay the ten days' sick pay, thereby saving the Department of Social Protection from paying anything for those ten days. I would be interested to see what that will save the Department because I believe the savings will be enormous. I would be interested in seeing where the motivation for the provision of sick pay is coming from. Perhaps it is simply about a saving for the Exchequer. Given how much illness benefit costs the State, there will be a huge reduction in the cost to the State under this legislation when the employers eventually cover the cost of ten sick days per year in 2026.

The cost to employers of providing sick pay will not be very great either. It will ultimately be 0.8% of the cost of a person's wages over a year, which is not a great amount. This shows even more so that employers should have to provide a sick pay entitlement to their employees as a matter of right. In 2019, €607 million was spent on illness benefit, which seems considerable but is actually a large reduction on the spending on illness benefit in previous years.

As I said earlier, I cannot help but wonder if this Bill is just an attempt to reduce costs further, dressed up as a win for workers' rights. It will create a massive cost to employers and I think more needs to be done to support employers in providing sick pay and in easing financial burdens. The sick pay scheme should include a combination of illness benefit with a top-up payment paid by employers. That would ensure the provision of a scheme that is useful to everybody.

Everyone who pays PRSI should be eligible to receive a sick payment from the State. The scheme should provide a combined payment. It may sound bizarre, but people should be able to afford to get sick. That is the reality. That is why we have not had a proper sick pay scheme, because people cannot afford it. Self-certification should also be included in the scheme. It speaks to the point in relation to affordability. The statutory sick leave scheme should give a self-certification period of up to two days' sick leave. This is a common feature in many other countries and I do not see why it cannot be included here. We talked about low-paid workers and those working in meat factories. For many people, in particular low-paid workers on minimum wage and slightly above, the amount that they receive in sick pay will be less than what they pay the doctor to get the certificate to qualify for sick pay. How does that make sense? It does not. Either the cost for the consultation with the doctor should be refunded to the worker, or the statutory sick pay scheme should be increased to ensure workers can afford to be sick. That is vitally important.

Overall, there is no doubt that this Bill falls short. There is no guarantee that the Bill will increase sick leave days from three days a year to ten days a year. I know the Tánaiste said that that will depend on the economy at the time. I do not think it should depend on the economy. Entitlement to sick pay should not be dependent on how the economy is functioning. It should depend on one thing and one thing only: whether a person requires it and the fact that it is right.

I support this Bill in essence, but it falls short in too many ways. There should have been an immediate introduction of ten days' sick leave. The sick pay scheme should not be limited to those who work continuously for 13 weeks. The financial cost should not be on employers alone, and illness benefit should continue to be provided as part of the sick pay scheme. There should also be an allowance for a certain number of self-certification days. That would go a long way to making this Bill acceptable and making this Bill achieve what it aims to achieve. Ultimately, the Bill should not be allowed to pass and fail to achieve the goals it needs to achieve. It must ensure that workers do not go to work when they are sick and infect co-workers and others, as we saw with Covid, thereby exacerbating the problem. An opportunity will be lost if that happens with this Bill. My fear is that it will happen if the Bill is not amended now.

See this speech in context