Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators for their contributions. I will deal first with Senator Byrne's questions in regard to what he describes as a rush. We have signalled this as coming for a very long time. The initial determination of the Labour Court was in 2012 and it had been my hope and expectation to commence all of this on 1 January. On foot of a request from the Senator's colleague in the other House, I determined that I would do the detail by way of regulation to give people the chance to read the regulation. I accepted the amendment his colleague in the Dáil put forward. Given that I am going to do it by regulation, and in answer to Senator Reilly's point, I cannot draw up the regulation until the legislation is enacted.

We are awaiting the final element of the Labour Court determination, which is on a narrow set of issues. I will not go through the whole day's worth of submissions from both parties in the court last Monday, but there is an important issue here in terms of pregnancy-related illness and how it should be covered in the protocol. We are expecting a binding recommendation from the Labour Court to give additional latitude to pregnancy-related illness, which is something of which I was mindful having heard the same points raised in this regard in the other House. Once that recommendation is forthcoming, we will be able to draw up comprehensive regulations and make them available to both Houses.

For that reason, we are not pursuing a motion for earlier signature. My intention to have these provisions commenced in January cannot be realised because it will require a period of time before the regulations can be formerly accepted. That will push the commencement of the scheme back into later next year. My intention, therefore, is that the original Bill, which deals with redeployment and which we debated at some length earlier in the year, will be commenced immediately, but the revised cross-sectoral sick leave arrangement will not be commenced until later. I have not yet fixed a date for that but, realistically, it will probably be 1 March before the regulations are formally laid before and approved by the Houses. That legislative process will delay the implementation of the provisions, for which I have been criticised in some quarters. However, it is important that the detail be there as well as the overarching substance.

In regard to retrospection, it is important to be clear on what we mean by the new scheme having retrospective application. The question of retrospection arises in terms of reviewing an individual's sick leave record over the past four years and using it to determine access to the new scheme. We debated this issue in the House and it is part of the presentation to the Labour Court. Assuming we commence the scheme on 1 March, say, we could not have a situation where a person who becomes ill the following day having never taken sick leave before is subject to the new arrangement while another person who, to be diplomatic about it, has an indifferent sick leave record gets his or her slate wiped clean. That would not be fair and the rationale behind the retrospective element is to avoid such anomalies. However, the new arrangement will not apply to anybody who is out sick at the time of commencement. In that circumstance, the old scheme will apply until such time as the individual has recovered and is back in work.

Senator Michael D'Arcy asked about the scope of these provisions. Other than the categories of workers which I have indicated are excluded, namely, employees of commercial semi-State bodies, members of the Defence Forces and people who do not qualify for sick leave such as Oireachtas Members, the President and so on, the scheme will have broad application. However, it will apply only to employees who are on the State payroll qua payroll as opposed to contract staff. People employed on contract have a different relationship with the State.