Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank colleagues for their considered contributions throughout the debate, which I found very useful in terms of ideas as to how we can improve the Bill. I am very pleased that it has broad cross-party support, at least in principle. The Bill will ensure that for the first time in Ireland, almost all employees will be entitled to paid sick leave in the event that they are unable to work due to a certified illness or injury. This will improve workers' rights and public health, reduce inequality between the public and private sectors and bring Ireland more in line with other advanced EU economies.

I have listened very carefully to the views of the Deputies who believe that the length of coverage provided at the outset of the Bill is insufficient. Taking into account the current economic climate, the initial period covered by employers will be modest but will increase incrementally. I think it is important to point out that after the three days, illness benefit kicks in on day four. We have to be mindful of imposing excessive costs on employers, particularly small businesses, many of which have had difficulties in the past two years with costs related to Covid, Brexit and the recent general increase in energy costs. That is why we are taking this incremental approach to the scheme.

Three days' sick pay is one of the lower entitlements in Europe, but it is only a start. We must remember that when comparing systems across jurisdictions, we very often do not compare like with like. Not all countries operate a State illness benefit scheme like we do. For instance, the UK offers a far longer period of employer sick pay of 26 weeks, but at a much lower rate of compensation, only £96.35 for the entire week. Therefore, I suspect that it was Deputy Pringle's employer in London that provided the generous sick pay to which he referred, and not the British Government that was in office at the time.

We also must remember that in Ireland, illness benefit can run for up to two years. Ten days or two weeks of paid sick leave is in line with the entitlement in many EU countries. It is the same as the entitlement that Australia and New Zealand provide for, and that Canada is currently planning. Other countries were mentioned, such as France, but what was not mentioned is the fact that countries like France require both employers and employees, including those on low pay, to make higher social insurance contributions. For example, a worker earning the minimum wage in Denmark will pay something like 13 times more tax than a worker earning the minimum wage in Ireland. Perhaps it is worth it, but it is interesting that a fact like that is often omitted from arguments by people who make comparisons between us and other countries, such as France or Denmark.

In relation to people on low pay struggling to pay the doctor, I take on board that it is a real issue that Members are raising and needs consideration. However, I point out that roughly 50% of the population now qualifies for a medical card or doctor visit card. When it comes to the adult working age population, that figure is much lower. It is closer to 15% or 20%, but that encompasses a lot of low-paid, part-time and minimum wage workers who do have a medical card or doctor visit card. I think the solution to this issue is not legislating for employers to pay sick pay to people who do not produce evidence. The solution is improving access to GP care and healthcare and raising the eligibility limits. I am aware that a proposal came from the main Opposition party that there should be a rebate of GP fees in some way. That is not a bad idea. We do that already with the treatment benefit scheme for dental and optical care. Perhaps we should do something for people who do not have a medical card when they attend their GP. Let us not forget that currently, if a worker is sick, let us say, for three days, he or she gets no sick pay and may still have to pay the GP. That would cost him or her around €60. Under the new scheme, he or she could get up to €330 in sick pay and the cost of seeing the GP will be deducted from that. The worker would be much better off than he or she is in the current situation.

Many Members raised the issue of the 13-week length of service. I will give that some more consideration. A minimum term of employment is a common provision to access other forms of statutory leave. Both parental leave and carer's leave require 12 months' continuous service for an employee to avail of it. I do not think it is unreasonable that we would allow a few weeks for a relationship to develop between an employer and employee before somebody is eligible for sick leave. I know that an employer would not want to take somebody on and only find out, after day three or in the second week that they are working, that they are off sick. However, I get the point that I hear from Deputies opposite that in some sectors like ECCE, childcare and the care economy, people are regularly employed for perhaps 30 or 38 weeks of the year. It would be unfair if they had to wait, on each occasion, for 13 weeks to get their entitlement, especially if it is with the same employer. Perhaps we can look at an amendment in that space that can resolve the issue. Certainly, the intention is that people, once they are working for a particular employer, will have the right to sick pay after 13 weeks. I would not like to see a situation whereby somebody who works for the same employer every year for 30 weeks will have to wait until week 14 to get the entitlement. That is not the intention of the Bill. We will give it some more thought.

On the inability to pay clause, I think it was pointed out that that has never been used when it comes to the national minimum wage. Employers tell me that where they actually cannot afford to pay, they still do not want to go to the Labour Court, because they will then be putting up in lights the fact that they have difficulties paying their bills and they will run into problems with suppliers and so on. The fact that it has not been used does not necessarily mean that there are not employers who cannot afford to pay. It just means that employers who cannot afford to pay do not avail of that mechanism for very good reasons.

In relation to Deputy Murphy's comment on illness benefit being too low, I agree with her on that, but I think that some of her facts are out of date. Illness benefit now kicks in on day four and not day seven. The €203 rate is the individual rate. If you have a dependant partner or children, the rate is higher, closer to around €300 a week. However, it is still too low. To answer Deputy Pringle's question, we intend to do the following. When we go beyond the three-day period, there will be savings to the State and the Social Insurance Fund because employers will be picking up sick pay for day four, day five or day six that would previously have been covered by illness benefit.

What we intend to do is increase illness benefit and use the savings that will be made to make illness benefit more generous. At the moment, illness benefit is very low - it is something over €200 for a single person and just over €300 for a dependent, but that is for the entire week. If a person is used to getting paid more every week, that is a big hit to their income. We hope to use the savings that are generated to improve illness benefit for employees when they hit the 11th day or the 12th day, as the case may be. The cost of sick pay to replace somebody who is sick is recognised as a cost in the tax code for employers.

On a point of record, ICTU is an umbrella organisation that represents almost all trade unions, but not all, and IBEC is an umbrella organisation that represents a broad spectrum of business, including small firms, as the Small Firms Association is a constituent member of IBEC.

See this speech in context