Marie Sherlock (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Tánaiste for coming to the House. I am delighted that we finally have the opportunity to debate the Bill. By the time it is enacted, it will probably be two years since the Labour Party put forward its legislation in the Dáil. Although we have obviously been impatient, we nonetheless herald the Bill as important legislation. Particular credit must be paid to the work of Patricia King, Laura Bambrick and others at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, as well as to SIPTU, which spent so much of the summer of 2020 highlighting the appalling lack of sick pay for low-paid workers, particularly those working in the red meat sector. One in ten workers in the red meat sector and one in six workers in the childcare sector have sick pay. As all present are aware, Ireland is one of a small number of EU member states that does not have statutory sick pay.

Before I speak on the detail, it is important to pay tribute to all those who were sick and out of pocket during the pandemic, notwithstanding that the Covid illness benefit was made available. I was thinking this morning of the boner in a meat factory who described to me in vivid detail the pressure he or she was under to continue going to work every day notwithstanding that there were men in the factory who clearly had Covid. I was thinking also of the single parent childcare worker who was absolutely terrified of being a close contact or getting Covid, yet, when she was a close contact, she did the right thing and stayed at home notwithstanding that she was very much out of pocket. It is important to state that the enhanced illness benefit was available, but that €350 was only 47% of median earnings and, for the lowest paid, it meant a severe hit on their pockets.

The Bill is important but, as the Tánaiste acknowledged, it is far from what we believe should be in place. We in the Labour Party are certainly in the camp that believes the Bill should go much further. Section 5 sets down a minimum wait period of 13 weeks. Like Senator Gavan, I acknowledge the amendment that was inserted to cover those who do not work during summer, but I still believe there is an issue for seasonal workers who work during summer or the spring and summer months. They are not necessarily captured by that amendment and will still have to start the 13 weeks when they commence employment in the spring or summer period. Section 5 provides for three statutory days. Of course, we have heard the Tánaiste's plan to increase that to ten days but I still have not heard a justification as to why we cannot hardwire this into the legislation. The Tánaiste referred to wanting flexibility, and ministerial regulation offering that greater flexibility, but there is no reason a simple amendment to this legislation could not be moved. Ultimately, this is about trust. We have to be able to trust that the Government will make good on those ten days. I was struck yesterday in the context of the commitment on the living wage legislation that it is for a year beyond the lifetime of the Government. We need a clear timetable with regard to those ten days.

The other issue relating to trust is that of the costs employers keep telling us they will have to take on because of this new provision in legislation. In the course of pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, we on the enterprise, trade and employment committee heard employers speak about the costs but when we asked them about the replacement needs and the costs associated with the replacement, we got vague answers. I absolutely accept that in retail and hospitality there will be costs. The other side of it, however, is that, as Senator Crowe mentioned, there are significant labour shortages in the sector at the moment so it does not necessarily follow that employers will be able to pull people in at short notice when a member of staff goes sick.

There being three days sick pay entitlement does not mean that all workers will take up that entitlement. I believe there was an assumption in the regulatory impact assessment that workers would take up the full entitlement per year. Most of us in this room were employees before entering political life. Did any of us take the full entitlement to sick pay? I think most of us would say we did not. That is true of most working people in this country.

Section 7 assures that the Minister will issue regulations at a future date on the rate of payment. The Tánaiste in his speech referred to a rate of 70% in that regard. We in the Labour Party believe it needs to be at the full rate of payment because, ultimately, why should people be punished when they are out sick? I think in particular of minimum wage workers who, under this legislation, will have to go to a doctor from day one of being ill, yet will earn less in a day than the cost of going to the doctor. A minimum wage worker will earn €57 on a full day's rate, yet we know that the average cost of going to a GP is at least €60, if not more.

That brings me to the issue in respect of medical certification. As has been stated, in an ideal world we would have timely and affordable access to a GP, or access at no cost, indeed, but that is not the reality in this country. The pre-legislative scrutiny was interesting in this regard as it illuminated the thinking in the Department in respect of the costs of going to a GP. It was asserted that 2 million people have medical cards and, in some ways, it is not really an issue for lower-paid workers to access a GP. The reality is that, as we know from wave 5 of the Healthy Ireland survey, just 14.6% of those in employment and aged between 18 and 64 hold a medical card, while just 3.6% hold a GP visit card. It was disappointing that the Department would throw such generalised figures about in respect of what it perceives to be the ease of accessing a GP. My colleagues and I know from speaking to households and families day in, day out that they have to think twice about the cost of going to a doctor. As Senator Gavan stated, they are waiting a significant period before doing so. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment put forward a really good recommendation on a cross-party basis that some form of rebate be put in place, particularly for low-paid workers, and I am disappointed that recommendation has not found its way into the legislation.

In conclusion, notwithstanding our serious concerns in respect of the extent of the Bill, it is obviously important legislation. Sick pay will be the main legacy of the pandemic to workers. It does say something that the introduction of sick pay commands cross-party support.Workers on the lowest incomes, who depend on every single cent of what they earn, will be at a loss when they are out sick. That is not good enough.