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

Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 14 would disrupt the balance in the Bill that protects the rights and obligations of both employers and employees. This is a progressive Bill and will ensure that all employees will have financial protection from day one of a medically certified absence. However, the Government does not want to jeopardise jobs by placing an unsustainable cost and administrative burden on business. The introduction of a statutory sick pay scheme must be balanced with the need to ensure the viability of the business and enterprise sector, thereby protecting jobs. It is entirely logical that the Minister would have regard to the state of the economy, the business environment and national competitiveness before adjusting the number of paid sick leave days provided for under the Bill.

In recent times we have witnessed a series of unprecedented and unforeseen events that have had significant impacts on the global and Irish economies, including Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These events are by their nature unplanned, and their impacts may be more widely felt by specific sectors of the economy. It is reasonable, therefore, that the Minister of the day would take account of any economic shocks when adjusting the number of paid sick leave days employers are required to cover. There is no sense in adjusting the number of sick leave days to a level that is unsustainable for businesses and leads to a loss of jobs.

Regarding amendment No. 12, it could be argued that these areas are already covered under section 6(1), which provides that the Minister may consider,inter alia, the state of the economy, the impact on employers and employees, the views of trade unions and any other matters the Minister deems relevant. This provides flexibility and allows the Minister to consider all relevant issues in addition to those specified in the Bill.

Although, having said that, I am minded to accept amendment No. 12, which would include an additional point to be considered by the Minister, which is the state of society generally, the public interest and employee well-being. We might have a slight numbering issue because that would give us two paragraph (b)s, so hopefully that would not create a major issue in having to come back here, but I do think I can accept amendment No. 12 because it is a reasonable matter to consider and adds to the list of matters he would consider.

In terms of amendment No. 15, the effect of inflation on the cost of living for employees is more relevant to pay levels than sick pay levels, so I would not be able to accept that.

On amendment No. 14, it is entirely reasonable that if we are going to listen to the unions, we should listen to the employer bodies as well. I can accept amendment No. 12 but not the other amendments.

See this speech in context