Terry Brennan (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire.

Community employment schemes were mentioned. Many participants have a great sense of pride in what they do for their communities and for Tidy Towns committees and make a positive contribution. I applaud the increasing numbers of participants. I realise for certain age groups three years is the maximum period of participation, after which they return to the dole. In many instances they want to continue on the scheme. It is good to see people with a sense of pride and dignity who want to continue. It is a pity the maximum period is not longer.

Carers have been mentioned by many speakers. They are committed to helping and caring for people who cannot help themselves in their own homes. I applaud those people.

Two weeks ago I spoke to a businessman who offered a man a job. I know the businessman but not the man who was offered the job. The businessman figured that he was the man for the job he wanted done. He offered him a salary of ¤38,000 and 5% of the increase in profits that he was sure the man would make. I asked what the 5% would amount to and he said it could be anything from ¤10,000 to ¤12,000 if things got better or it could be an additional ¤15,000 per annum. This was a married man with four children who was receiving social welfare. I do not know what he was getting on social welfare but he did his figures and declined the offer of a job that was likely to earn him ¤45,000 to ¤50,000. That is reality, not fiction. I could not believe it. The businessman would not tell me who the man was but he still continues to receive unemployment payments. What percentage of people on social welfare who, when offered a job, respond and take up the job? For those who do not take up job offers, what is the procedure?

It is estimated that expenditure on illness benefit in 2012 will be ¤847 million, quite a substantial sum. The introduction of a scheme of statutory sick pay, mentioned by previous speakers, whereby employers would directly meet the cost of illness-related absences for an initial period of illness is being considered - I hope consideration is as far as that will go - in the context of the need to reform the social welfare system to bring it into line with practices in other countries in this area.

I am aware that most other European countries, including all of our major competitors, oblige employers to pay for some sick pay costs. The extent of this obligation varies considerably. For example, the period is two years in the Netherlands, 28 weeks in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, six weeks in Germany and nine days in Finland. I could go on, but I will not. A range of complex issues need to be addressed before any decision can be taken by the Government on the possible introduction of such a scheme. I believe it is the wrong time to introduce this scheme, which will cost jobs as has been stated. The Minister will be aware there are approximately 200,000 small and medium enterprises in this country, many of which are struggling to exist. Unfortunately, many too have closed down.

On the issue of absenteeism, I acknowledge the part the Government has played in reducing the dreadful absenteeism in the HSE. Absenteeism of approximately five days per worker in small businesses in Ireland, means these workers are close to the best performers across Europe. There is definite scope for further management of sick day absences in the Civil Service and public service. There is little reason to expect that requiring employers to pay sickness payments during the first four weeks of a claim will bring about a reduction in welfare dependency. The proposed scheme would have a particularly severe impact on small businesses, as most small businesses do not have a sick pay scheme in operation. It is the wrong time to consider this and perhaps we should wait to consider it when we get back to full production throughout the country. Please do not do it.