Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators for all their contributions and for the opportunity to address the House on the Government's position on this motion on the Bill put forward in the Dáil a few weeks ago. I understand Senator Sherlock had a big involvement in and commitment to it and I welcome that.

I certainly welcome the opportunity to have this discussion. The Tánaiste clearly said on behalf of our Department and on behalf of Government that we are committed to introducing a statutory sick pay scheme. That is a strong commitment. While some have gone half way to welcoming it, most choose to ignore that commitment. It is quite a large step on behalf of this country. It is an area we have not seen progress in for a long time and yet the Tánaiste committed to it the other day. It cannot just happen like that. To do this right takes a little bit of time and our amendment refers to making sure we get this right and get the balance right. That is what we are trying to achieve.

Likewise, I have obviously referred to the minimum wage and progress made in that regard. People forget to mention, however, the process behind that, namely, the Low Pay Commission which was introduced by Governments put in place a system to get there. Much progress has been made and, again, any Government with Fine Gael in it has honoured the commitment to the Low Pay Commission and taken on board its recommendations regardless of how high they might be or how low they are. It has taken on board the recommendations and implemented them. That process is working but, again, recognises the timing and balance of when one makes these changes. The Low Pay Commission did not bring proposals forward in July because it recognised the timing. It brought them forward in September and the Government adopted them. It is about doing things right and in a process that recognises it is difficult for some sectors. One must give time and space to be able to achieve success in many areas. The Tánaiste and the Government are committed to it and that is what is important.

I welcome the opportunity to address these important issues again here and I thank the Labour Party for the motion. Covid-19 continues to have significant impacts on all workers and, particularly, working parents and their children. I am aware many families experience significant stress due to the unavailability of family support and in situations where a child’s school or childcare provider is closed because a child or children have tested positive for the virus. We are extremely sympathetic to these families and acknowledge the challenge working parents and employees face, and will likely face, in the months ahead as we learn and continue to learn to live and work with Covid-19 restrictions.

There was some commentary during this debate, but also outside this House, on illness benefit and supports for people who are out of work. It was not always informed commentary and I will put on record exactly what the situation is. The previous Government acted quickly once Covid-19 emerged. Since March, all workers certified by a doctor as diagnosed with or suspected of having Covid-19, or who are awaiting a test result or isolating because of a close contact with Covid-19, are immediately entitled to the Covid-19 enhanced illness benefit, which is €350 for up to ten weeks. We recognise it is not the full wage and it is not 90% of wages. It is, however, a fairly strong commitment on behalf of the taxpayer to introduce that illness benefit of €350. This was an important intervention given the lack of a statutory pay scheme in Ireland and it recognises that fact. To date, more than 60,000 people have availed of it. The goal is to support people to not go to work when they present with Covid-19 symptoms by protecting their income as much as we possibly can and addressing their financial concerns when they should be in isolation.

Normally, a person is not entitled to illness benefit for the first six days of any period of incapacity for work. These days are known generally as waiting days. Significantly, where a person is diagnosed with Covid-19, or is a probable source of Covid-19, he or she will not be subject to the usual six waiting days provision. Therefore, the payment from the first day of illness allows them to comply with medical advice to self-isolate to mitigate the spread of the disease while having their income protected. The rate of the enhanced illness benefit payment for Covid-19 is up to €350 per week. This is higher than the normal maximum personal rate of standard illness benefit for a limited period out to April 2021.

Additional allowances on top of the personal rate in respect of dependant adults and children continue at the normal payment level and other supports that come with that. Payment will be made where an employee or self-employed person is diagnosed with Covid-19 or is a probable source of infection. Payment can be made for a period of up to ten weeks for those diagnosed with Covid-19 subject to ongoing certification. Most people do not require payment for this duration and have not to date.

Payment can be made for a period of two weeks for those who are certified to be a probable source of infection. It is important that employees and the self-employed comply with public health advice to self-isolate, where appropriate, while having their income protected to the greatest extent possible. There is much effort to get that message across. It was important we correct that because misinformation does not help the public health message we are trying to get out there. It is essential if we are to limit and slow down the spread of the virus that we keep the number of people affected to a minimum and reduce the peak of cases which will cause extreme pressure on the health system.

The contribution conditions have been changed so the maximum number of employees are covered, including those in seasonal, part-time or casual employment. There was no charge by GPs for certificates of incapacity for work. The standard consultation fee is paid for by the person who is ill or it was covered by the medical card. It is important that self-employed people who do not normally qualify for illness benefit are also eligible for the enhanced illness benefit in these limited circumstances.

The changed rates of payment will only apply to people who claim illness benefit with regard to Covid-19. This is an easy-to-access support provided by the Government in these special circumstances which provides income support for employees who do not get paid by their employer while on sick leave.Many employees have worked with the system and with their employees to get this balance right. In some cases this does not happen but the majority of employers have acted responsibly and we should recognise that in this House. It is fine to call out those who might not have but we should recognise that the majority have, according to the feedback we are getting as Deputies and Ministers and I am sure Senators will encounter the same feedback.

As of 2 October, more than €38.7 million has been spent on the enhanced illness benefit payment. It is reaching those who need it, in most cases.

On parental leave and the issue around force majeure, this Member's motion calls for an extension of the force majeureparental leave where a child's school or childcare provider is closed due to Covid-19. The House will be aware that form of leave is paid leave provided for under the Parental Leave Act 1988 and Parental Leave (Amendment) Act 2006. It is under the remit of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Helen McEntee, and she addressed this in the previous discussion in this House in relation to the Bill put forward. It is intended to provide for short periods of leave in urgent family situations where a close family members is ill or has been injured. The maximum amount of leave allowable is three days in any 12-month period or five days in a 36-month period. It is important to acknowledge that it is probable that if an employee suspects their child has Covid-19, the employer may not want that employee to attend the workplace until clarity has been brought. That aside, there are a number of issues with the proposal which will need to be considered further and there is a commitment to do that in the wider debate. Force majeureleave applies in emergency situations where an employee must deal with an urgent family crisis. The proposed change would place it on a more long-term footing, similar to other family leaves but without the necessity for a notice period. That would need to be looked at and that has been addressed before.

The shadow motion possibly places a significant burden on employers, which the Supreme Court previously found must be proportionate at a time when many employers, particularly SMEs, are struggling to remain viable. The Bill does not take account of possible working from home arrangements that may be in place and this would need to be looked at further. Many employers have been accommodating employees as best they can.

The reference I made to the viability of SMEs is also relevant to the last part of our countermotion, looking at all ways to achieve what we want. We are committed to the statutory sick pay scheme, as the Tánaiste has said, but we have to look at the burden this will bring to many employers, including small employers who may not be able to cope with that. I accept that is referenced in the motion but we have to go into it in great detail to get the balance correct.

On the introduction of statutory sick pay, the Tánaiste has publicly stated his intention to establish a statutory sick pay scheme in full consultation with employers and unions. That is the best way to do it. It is not to kick it off for six, 12 or 18 months for no reason; it is to give us time to get this detail worked out and to introduce a scheme that will work and stand the test of time. This will build on the various improvements made to social protection for workers over the past five years. Some claim the Government should be judged on actions and our actions are clear when it comes to improvement of parental leave and parental benefit, swift action on Covid, commitments to sick pay and the Low Pay Commission and increases to the minimum wage. We are strongly committed to that and the programme for Government shows our intent to deliver more in this area and that is what we should be judged on. When we say we will do something and need more time to do it, I ask people to accept that and accept that the Government has delivered in the past.

The statutory sick pay scheme would improve workers’ rights, particularly low-paid workers, but there are various issues to consider. In that regard, the Tánaiste presented a draft issue paper on statutory sick pay to the Labour Employer Economic Forum, LEEF, the subgroup on employment legislation, last Wednesday, 30 September, with a view to commencing a consultation process. That is not kicking the can down the road; that is action that will result in progress. That is what we are talking about and what we asked for in the discussion in the other House on the Bill and in tonight’s motion as well. The Tánaiste requested that the social partners consider the range of issues and policy options set out in the paper and submit their views on the paper by 14 October, next Wednesday. We are not kicking the can down the road for 18 months or beyond; it is next week. Representatives from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, IBEC, Chambers Ireland and the Construction Industry Federation attended that meeting. The views of the social partners will be taken on board and the revised paper will then be discussed at a further meeting of LEEF later this month. It will then be presented to the plenary LEEF for an agreement in advance of launching a full public consultation in November this year, not six, 12 or 18 months but very soon because we are committed to doing this and let there be no doubt on that. The Seanad calls on the Government to expedite the consultation process but consultation is crucial and has proven beneficial in the past. When we make large steps in the right direction, it is important we do them in the right way and bring everybody with us. That is what we are trying to do. As I said in my contribution in the other House on this Bill, we cannot come in and do it just like that. It does not work that way in the real world because it is a big commitment and a big draw on resources. We have to get it right and that is what we want to do. Any move to introduce a new scheme that will impose further costs on business must be carefully considered and worked out.

While most businesses in the country have reopened and are trading, many are still faced with the prospect of a slow recovery in domestic consumer demand and decreased international demand, together with the overhang of costs and losses which arose during recent months. As my colleagues have already said, many businesses could have taken the easy option at the start of all this and just forgot about it, closed and locked up their business. However, they did not. They tried to find a way to keep their doors open and their staff employed. I sit down on a daily basis with all the different sectors and ask them what is in their head and what they really think. It always comes back to keeping their staff employed for most of them and keeping the service they have established. Number one, from conversations with most of those people, is about their staff. The biggest thank you they have for the taxpayer for all the supports was for the wage subsidy scheme because it meant they could keep their staff there and keep the link to work. They recognise other supports that were brought in by the Government on behalf of the taxpayer. They recognise the taxpayer has put a lot of money into supporting them and their business but the biggest thank you was for the wage subsidy. Employers in the majority are absolutely committed to their employees and I do not like the way this House tries to give the impression on many occasions that they are not. It is a lot of effort to employ somebody and even the raise in the minimum wage – nobody is arguing against somebody on the minimum wage earning more money – can bring extra costs straight away. Consider a small shop employing 20 people, there is an extra couple of thousand euro per year just like that when the minimum wage increases. That, in most cases, cannot be passed on but businesses and employers recognise that is a positive direction for people and they want to see their staff getting more money. However, it does not come easy and we have to recognise that in all these conversations. It takes a bit of working out and sometimes it means, as was referenced by Senator Marie Sherlock today, that the taxpayer might have to step in for some smaller companies to make this happen. We recognise that and that is what we try to do. The Labour motion reflects that we do not assume every employer can absorb all these costs, when it comes to pay, statutory sick pay and so on.

Microbusinesses and small businesses are particularly vulnerable to the economic effects of Covid-19. Many businesses, even while closed, continue to incur costs, including fixed costs, without being able to generate revenue. We hear reference to that with people who own hotels having to pay thousands of euro in ESB bills while no customers come in. We have to get the timing of all this right without adding additional pressure on those who cannot carry any more. I have had discussions with everybody in this House about the necessity for us to be honest with small businesses and all employers that there will be a combination of state supports, more equity put in and probably the necessity to borrow along the way, as well. The Houses of the Oireachtas and the taxpayer will not be able to cover every issue facing small companies and employers but we will work with them across the system, including the introduction of a statutory sick pay scheme. Any move to introduce a statutory sick pay scheme must be balanced with the need to support the viability of the business and enterprise sector, thereby protecting jobs and the desire to get people back to work as quickly as possible in all sectors, including hospitality, childcare and many others. The Government has committed unprecedented levels of financial supports using taxpayers' money to keep businesses afloat including liquidity supports

;the restart grant; the credit guarantee scheme; the rate waivers from local authorities; the warehousing of tax liabilities for SMEs by Revenue; and the different wage subsidy schemes we have had. As I emphasised in the Dáil in September, businesses continue to require help to stabilise, reboot, deal with the challenges they will face coming into winter and make the decision to reopen easier. Sometimes their accountant will tell them they should close the door but they say: “No. We want to open. We want to stay open.” We need them to stay open and create jobs. To wrap up, I will set out the issues that will be examined. First, additional costs that will arise for employers through higher payroll costs have to be looked at. This will place a significant burden on employers at a time when they are struggling with the impact of Covid-19. Second, we must look at the associated increase in administration and compliance costs for micro SMEs, especially for those firms which do not already operate a sick pay scheme. While we recognise that many still do, but some do not, and that is why we are having this discussion. We cannot further risk those jobs. The motion is trying to protect jobs, create jobs and make them better jobs. Third, there will be additional costs for firms or industries with a higher incidence of absenteeism. We have to work through that and factor through that as well. We can see it in all sectors. Another point to consider is that statutory sick pay is a break from the voluntary terms and conditions that many employers afford their employees in contracts of employment. That also needs to be looked at. The discussion around collective bargaining was also referenced here today. We did strengthen legislation on this in 2015, through our colleague from the House, and we are committed in the programme for Government to looking at other areas of legislation on collective bargaining.

All that is impacted by a commitment to implement a statutory sick pay scheme, so it is not just as simple as saying we should do it next week or the week after. It takes a little bit of time. We are committed to coming back to the House with a general scheme of a Bill by March 2021. That is what the Tánaiste has said, and the work has begun, and the subgroup met last week and will report again next week. We will build on that and we will be back here before March with movement in this area.