Paul Murphy: Urges 10-Day Sick Leave, Criticises 'Snail-Paced' Plan

Obviously, look, we welcome the fact that we're here tonight to introduce a right to statutory sick leave. It's positive. It's a shame it took a global pandemic to get Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael there, but here we are. But this amendment aims to make sick leave a real substantial reality from the word go for workers as opposed to the government's proposal. So the government's proposal is we start with three and then subject to the whims of the minister we may go up to 10. I obviously support the amendments which say we start from 10. That would be a significant improvement. But we go even further in our amendment in saying that, look, the reason we're here, the reason we're accepting the need, that there is broad acceptance, the need for sick pay is that this is about workers' rights. But it's also about society at large, that it isn't good for anybody to have workers who are sick going into work, feeling compelled to go into work. That's bad for everybody involved and society at large. And therefore, workers should be entitled to the number of sick days that they are sick. That should be the bottom line in terms of legislation that is actually focused on workers' rights as opposed to a very meagre nod to the right of workers to sick day, but extremely circumscribed by the current proposal. So that's the essential elements of the amendment. Thanks. I want to thank deputies for their contributions. I've been very clear on the medium-term plan, and that is to make sure that employers know what their obligations will be and employees will know what their rights are. The statutory entitlement to sick pay will be phased in as part of a four-year plan. The initial entitlement will be to three paid sick leave days per year once the bill is enacted and commenced, and this will effectively fill the gap in coverage caused by the illness benefit waiting days. Closing the gap of current waiting days before being able to access illness benefit will help reduce the numbers of sick employees presenting for work. It's important to point out that illness benefit kicks in on day four and runs for up to a year and two years in some cases, so it's not the case that people will have no income. Having that said, illness benefit in Ireland is very low, and that's something that we need to examine in the context of the budget and the Social Welfare Bill. The four-year plan takes account of the current economic climate and existing financial pressures on businesses. The number of days will increase incrementally, with the goal that the employer will eventually cover the cost of 10 sick days per year from the fourth year of operation, after which illness benefit continues to kick in. We fully understand that many businesses, particularly SMEs and particularly along the border, are really struggling at the moment with additional costs, often linked to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine or the aftermath of COVID and Brexit. This includes higher energy costs, higher input costs, wage increases and, indeed, costs imposed on government, such as auto-enrolment and the additional public holiday. It's in recognition of that that we have chosen to phase this in gradually. Amendment 17 would provide that the number of paid sick leave days cannot be reduced by below 10 by any ministerial order. As statutory sick leave will be introduced at three days per year, this amendment would not align with the timeline of the scheme. Amendment 18 would provide that there is no restriction on how many days statutory sick leave could increase by in any given year. Section 5 currently stipulates that the minister may not increase the number of sick leave days by more than three in any 12-month period. This provides certainty to employers by ensuring that unexpectedly large increases in the number of sick leave they have to pay for will not be introduced. I believe this is a sensible approach that will allow small businesses to plan ahead and anticipate these additional costs. Providing the minister with the ability to increase the number of sick leave days by as many as 10 days in one year, as amendment 19 would allow, would be disproportionate. Such a dramatic increase in coverage in one year could have unintended negative consequences. could force employers to lay off staff, make people redundant, reduce their hours or even reduce their pay and that would not be a desirable outcome. Thank you. Margaret and Dr Murphy. Margaret Norfey. Dr Murphy. I'm a brief, but the Tawnes' arguments in favour of sick pay and why it is good, are all arguments for why we should actually allow workers to have sick pay for the days that they are sick. That is the bottom line. There are also arguments in favour of amendment 18 in terms of decreasing the limit on the maximum number of days. So that if we were lucky enough to have a left government, hopefully a left government with an eco socialist programme, that it could decide, okay, we're not going to take the very snail's pace approach of the government, Fianna Fáil, Fianna Gael, and instead we're going to rapidly say, okay, we'll at least go to the 10 at the very limit. I mean, compare us to some of our European colleagues. In Austria workers are entitled to between 10 and 16 weeks, weeks, not days, of paid sick leave on 100% pay. In the Netherlands workers are entitled to up to 70% of their wages for up to two years. You know, we are well behind certainly, well, Europe as a whole, but certainly the leaders in Europe even more so in terms of basic issues in terms of workers' rights issue, but it's also a public health issue. So again, it's welcome we're having sick pay, but it is a real shame that the government is rejecting these amendments and taking such a minimal snail-paced approach to the introduction of sick leave. I suppose the argument that I'm making, and it's often the argument that I make, is one in favour of incremental progress. And I appreciate that for many people, that progress is too slow, but I do have responsibility as Minister to listen to all sides of the argument and look at it from the point of view of employers as well as employees. And in my view, the most important workers' right is the right to work. And what I want to do is to continually raise the floor and raise the bar to continually improve pay terms, conditions and workers' rights, but not to the extent that businesses become unviable. And certainly what businesses are saying to me, small employers, particularly around the border area, particularly in small towns, is that there's a lot coming at them at the moment. Higher labour costs, higher input costs, higher energy costs, higher insurance costs, which I'm working on, and then higher costs that the government is putting on them as well. Whether it's the additional public holiday, which I stand over, I sign the order for it. Whether it's auto-enrolment, I kick-started that as Minister for Social Protection, I stand over it. But all these are additional costs for employers, and I don't want to, with every good intention, end up putting workers in a bad position where their employer is forced to lay them off or reduce their hours or even reduce their pay, because that would be counterproductive. Two final points here. Look, I do think comparisons with other European countries that are being made are a little bit misleading, because they don't take into account illness benefit. A lot of countries have an integrated system of sick pay and illness benefit. So what happens here, from when this new right comes into place, is for the first three days you get sick pay for your employer. After that, illness benefit kicks in for up to two years. So it's not the case that it's only three days or five days or ten days. Illness benefit kicks in. And also I think what needs to be borne in mind is that where there is better provision for sick pay, and there is in lots of European countries, it's based on a very different social insurance system. One where the average social insurance contribution for employers is 20%, not 10%, and where low paid workers pay a lot more income tax than social insurance. In a lot of the Nordic countries, low paid workers and minimum wage workers pay five, ten, thirteen times as much income tax as they do here. And I don't think it's a very honest argument to say that low paid workers and minimum wage workers should have the same social insurance benefits as Nordic countries, but shouldn't have to pay the kind of high taxes that they would pay in a Nordic country. So I want my vote to vote here. I want my vote to vote. On this will be in terms of the most difficult so that not least we could get in the orderاخ Ox Buzz день