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

I thank Senator Gavan for giving me the opportunity to have this conversation and discuss the issue again. Others have also tabled amendments. The Senator quoted what Deputy Bruton said on Committee Stage. I participated in that debate and we had a good lengthy discussion on many amendments and the Bill. It was a worthwhile discussion and we teased through the issues. We introduced some changes on Report Stage in the Dáil that deal with some of the concerns, including those raised by Senator Sherlock. We have reflected them.

To be very clear, we do not agree with these amendments and I will explain why. They would confer the right to statutory sick leave on employees from the very outset of their employment. Genuinely in our view it is difficult to see how this would be practical. Many employment rights require a certain period of qualifying employment and we think this is appropriate in this case also. The period of 13 weeks is a relatively period short to wait. We recognise that sick pay is slightly different to other benefits. We have already dealt comprehensively with the area of concern, which is the possibility that people on successive but non-continuous contracts might have to re-qualify for sick leave entitlements on a regular basis if laid off over the summer, such as in education or childcare-related jobs. This would be a difficulty and it has been dealt with.

Senator Buttimer touched on the issue of balance. We are trying to get a balance to recognise that this is a new employment law. It is a new statutory right and one of which we are all supportive. We have been discussing it for several years. We looked at quite a lot of countries. I am trying to remember whether Iceland was among them. I am sure we did because it is very much involved in many issues at European level. I will check as to whether we specifically looked at Iceland but I think we did. We spent a lot of time looking at international best practice trying to get this right and to have the entitlements at the right time. We want to make sure we get the legislation passed and that it is responsive to the needs and that we are towards the top with regard to the offering from a European point of view.

If these amendments were accepted if an employer in a shop or restaurant took on somebody for a few weeks in the summer would it be fair that an employee could end up needing ten days sick leave at the beginning and only work for a few weeks after that? Is this fair on the employer? We are trying to get the balance right because this is a cost to employers. We also want to protect jobs. An employer could genuinely take on somebody and the person could be genuinely sick for ten days and might work for no longer than a week or two after that. We believe it is best that a relationship develops between the employer and employee. We believe 13 weeks is fair. It is not a very long length of time. Other legislation provides for that relationship to be developed over six months or 12 months. In this case we are providing for 13 weeks. On balance and on reflection after plenty of debate in both Houses, we still think this is acceptable and we are refusing to accept these amendments. I hope people understand. This is about balance. There is an issue of cost for employers. It is recognised. This is a public health measure. It is to make sure people do not feel they have to go to work. It is a major addition to employment law and we accept this. It does come at great cost to employers.

Senator Sherlock asked about the regulatory impact assessment and the cost analysis. We are not in any way, shape or form assuming that people will automatically take the days but we have to look at the potential maximum impact if it did happen. Those costs are assessed. That is what we have to do in a regulatory impact analysis. It is proper order. It does not mean any of us has an assumption. In fact, it is the opposite because we understand most people want to go to work and earn their full potential. They would not take sick pay unnecessarily.

To make sure there is proper oversight of the scheme certification is required. This is also important and right and we will discuss it later. We have to protect the system and protect the balance we are trying to achieve. I hope Senators will accept that we believe 13 weeks is a reasonable timeframe for an employer and employee relationship to be developed before the sick pay legislation kicks in.