I remind the House that there are six minutes per question.
Priority Questions
Social Insurance Rates
Willie O'Dea
Question:52. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection if the Programme for Government's commitment to maintain social welfare rates remains in place; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [44637/12]
I welcome Deputy O'Dea to his first questions session in his new role as the Fianna Fáil Party's spokesperson on social protection.
The Revised Estimates for the Department of Social Protection provide for expenditure of just over €20.5 billion in 2012 on the wide range of schemes and services the Department provides. This expenditure represents 39% of gross current Government expenditure and impacts in some way on almost every single person and business in the State, either directly or indirectly. The comprehensive expenditure report published by Government last December provides for additional new expenditure reduction measures of €1,033 billion over the next two years in the Department of Social Protection budget. This includes €540 million of new savings to be achieved in budget 2013.
Reducing overall expenditure in 2013 and beyond in line with these targets will be challenging. As part of my preparations for dealing with these matters, last Friday I held a pre-budget forum in St. Andrew's resource centre on Pearse Street in Dublin. I invited 35 community and voluntary groups to the forum and listened carefully to their views and proposals in relation to the forthcoming budget. These organisations play a key advocacy role in our society and the payments made by my Department play a vital role in providing income support to the individuals they represent. No decisions have been made at this stage as to how these budget targets will be met. As I indicated on Friday last, the Government is committed, in the programme for Government, to maintain social welfare rates. The Government will finalise its consideration of the budget over the coming weeks having regard to all of its commitments. The outcome of this process will be announced on budget day. The House can be assured that my colleagues and I will do our best to ensure the burden of resolving the crisis does not fall disproportionately on those who depend on income supports from my Department.
I thank the Minister for her good wishes. As I listened to the reply, and as I read the statement on Friday, I was reminded of a literary analogy. The Minister is familiar with George Orwell's Animal Farm and remembers the scene where the basic precepts by which the farm was to be ruled were written on a wall. Whenever it suited the ruling clique to breach one of the precepts, the animals noted that one or two words had been added or removed. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste stated unequivocally that social welfare rates would be maintained. The programme for Government states: "We will maintain social welfare rates." The Minister referred to attending a meeting on Friday, in the presence of the media, at which she committed herself to maintaining core rates of social welfare. The word "core" had been added. Can the Minister enlighten us on what she means by core social welfare rates? The commitment gave a great number of people a great deal of comfort. I assume core social welfare rates includes jobseeker's allowance, jobseeker's benefit and old age pensions. Does it include carer's allowance, disability allowance, family income supplement and child benefit? Can the Minister give an assurance about the household benefits package? I am trying to ascertain precisely what the Minister meant by core and what it covers.
The Department of Social Protection is the country's largest spending Department and many people look to the Department for income support. It is important to ensure the maximum protection for those people in the forthcoming budget while reforming social welfare to help people get back to work and become active and engaged. For that reason, I launched the first of the new, integrated social welfare offices yesterday in Sligo. When I spoke on Friday, I referred to core social welfare rates, which are weekly social welfare rates families and individuals receive, as outlined by Deputy O'Dea. They depend on them for their income or for the bulk of their income. In the case of many of our pensioners, weekly pension income may be the only income they receive. Last year, although it was extremely challenging, the Department was able to protect the core weekly social welfare rates of social welfare recipients. We have made no decisions yet on budget 2013, a fact emphasised at the meeting on Friday.
Many kites have been flown by various people about what might or might not happen in the budget.
Most of them by the Minister's Department.
They have not come from my Department and they have not come from me. Deputy O'Dea referred to Animal Farm. He knows, because he quotes so liberally from it, that in Animal Farm some creatures consider themselves more important than others. I consider the people who are most important are people like our pensioners who require and, I hope, will receive protection in the forthcoming budget. We were able to do that last year and I hope we will be able to do it this year.
I am glad the Minister has confirmed that she regards pensioners as more important than others. That is some progress. Do I take the Minister's reply to mean that jobseeker's allowance, jobseeker's benefit, carer's allowance, family income supplement and disability allowance come within the ambit of core rates? The Minister was widely quoted in the media at the weekend as giving an unequivocal commitment that core rates would be maintained. I did not see a denial of that from the Minister. That is the story that was published. The Minister gave a commitment to a group, in the presence of the media, that core social welfare rates would be maintained. Why does the Minister say no decisions have been taken? Last Friday, she gave the people the impression that decisions had been taken.
We cannot have the budget debate today.
I ask the Minister to clarify what she means by core rates.
The Deputy has long experience of Government and he knows that no decision is finalised until it is finalised at the Cabinet table just before the Minister for Finance comes into the Chamber and announces the budget.
The Minister announced a decision last Friday.
I am happy to reassure Deputy O'Dea that this long-standing practice has not changed simply because Fianna Fáil left Government at the request of the people. What I said last Friday is that the programme for Government sets out the protection of core social welfare rates.
Which are?
That commitment is important, but no decision is made until the budget is finalised. I told the Deputy's predecessor, Deputy Barry Cowen, this last year and I am happy to say that when the budget emerged from the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform, we were, in the very difficult circumstances bequeathed to us by the Deputy and his colleagues, in a position to protect those rates. I hope we will be in a position to do so this year also. No decisions are made until they are all finalised.
Advisory Group on Tax and Social Welfare
Aengus Ó Snodaigh
Question:53. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection when she will publish her Advisory Group on Tax and Social Welfare's report on child income supports; if her attention has been drawn to the fact that the proposal which was reported in the media has caused fears amongst families and risks further damaging consumer sentiment; her views on the recommendation that child benefit be cut by €40; her plans with regard to the payment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [44635/12]
Willie O'Dea
Question:55. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection her views on the expert group advice on the future of the disability allowance for persons aged 16 to 18 years; her future plans for the disability allowance payment for persons aged 16 to 18 years; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [44638/12]
Aengus Ó Snodaigh
Question:56. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection when she expects to publish her Advisory Group on Tax and Social Welfare's report on her proposal to axe disability allowance for persons aged 16 and 17 years; if she will outline the scale of the financial loss to households with a young person with disabilities arising from such a cut; her plans with regard to the payment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [44636/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 53, 55 and 56 together.
Creating jobs and tackling poverty are two of the key challenges that Ireland faces and it is essential our tax and social protection systems play their part in addressing these issues. To this end, and in line with commitments contained in the programme for Government, I established last year the advisory group on tax and social welfare, with the aim of harnessing expert opinion and experience to examine a number of specific issues and make cost-effective proposals for improving employment incentives and achieving better poverty outcomes, particularly child poverty outcomes. Total social welfare expenditure on children is some €3 billion this year.
The group’s overall method of working is based on producing modular reports on the priority areas identified in the terms of reference. The group commenced its work programme by prioritising the area of family and child income supports. I am currently considering the findings of the group’s report on this issue and I intend to publish this report in due course. The report is therefore not yet in the public domain and I do not propose to comment on it at this time. With regard to the budgetary proposals relating to disability allowance and domiciliary care allowance, I understand the group’s report on this issue is being finalised and therefore has not yet been submitted to me.
I am conscious that the budget 2012 measures concerning disability allowance and domiciliary care allowance gave rise to concerns about the impact on families of people with disabilities, most notably in the case of families of children and young adults with profound disabilities. When the group reverts to me, I and my Government colleagues will reflect carefully on its report.
Finally, it should be noted that the previous Government, in its budget for 2009, announced that the qualifying age for receipt of the disability allowance should be raised to 18 years of age and that domiciliary care allowance would continue to be paid from the age of 16 to 18 years in its place. While this decision was deferred, the Department of Social Protection value for money review of the disability allowance scheme, published in 2010, found that the case for increasing the minimum age for disability allowance from 16 to 18 years was compelling. In this regard, it was determined that the payment of disability allowance to 16 year olds may also give rise to issues within families as to the control and use of the payment. The view expressed in much commentary and numerous reports on this is that when a child is 16 years old it would be better if the payment went to the child's parent. The view is that it is appropriate and proper that income in respect of a child goes to the parent rather than the child getting a social welfare payment at 16 years old.
How much time do we have?
There is a total of 18 minutes for the three questions.
I will deal first with my question about child benefit. I realise the Minister cannot say specifically what will happen in the budget but there have been a number of proposals, one of which is that child benefit be cut by €40 and that a separate top-up system be put in place. Is the Minister seriously considering a two rate child benefit system, to include a top-up system? Does she agree that a family with two children would lose almost €1,000 per year - the exact figure is €960 - if the proposed cut of €40 is implemented? This would be a substantial amount for any family but for many families the removal of that amount could be a tipping point. Is the Minister aware that her Department's value for money review of child benefit, published in 2010, demonstrated the dependence of middle income families on child benefit? Its analysis found that households in the fourth and fifth of the ten income brackets fell below or on the poverty line after paying their taxes and that in many cases child benefit lifted them above that line. Many of those households would be affected by any change in child benefit if the Minister opted to move away from universality.
The Minister said she will publish the reports after considering them. Will that be before the budget changes or afterwards? That is a key question for Members on all sides of the House, so that when decisions are made in the budget they will have some idea where they originated and whether the reports are based on the facts of day-to-day living. I refer to the report of the advisory group on tax and social welfare and the report relating to the changes the Minister had intended to introduce to the disability allowance in last year's budget and on which she rowed back after the outcry from the people affected, particularly the parents.
The total spend on child benefit in 2012 is estimated at €2.078 billion. It is €199 million on family income supplement. The payment of qualified child increases of nearly €30 per week, which go to families on social welfare, account for a further €698 million, and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance accounts for another €64 million.
That brings the total spend on child-related benefits to just over €3.04 billion. In the context of a social welfare budget of €20.5 billion, it is a significant amount and that is appreciated by families in Ireland, particularly mothers. I am on the record many times saying that I value the universal payment because it is paid to the caring parent and directly in cash rather than, as happens in other countries, through the tax system or through tax credits. Given the amount we spend on this and other social welfare payments, the question arises of finding a way to target some of this money in a better way for families who are poor, in work or out of work and on social welfare benefits. Is it possible in the context of that €3 billion expenditure to produce better child poverty outcomes?
The Deputy asked about the advisory group. I have received its report and it is being examined in detail, particularly the issues the Deputy raised such as middle income families because our tax system does not have a direct tax allowance for dependent children. Child benefit is the direct support the State pays to the family. I must bring the report to Cabinet and I have taken the opportunity in the context of other issues related to children, particularly those experiencing poverty, to discuss it with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. The report has not been brought to Government yet but once it goes to Government, we will be in a position to publish it. We want to have a close look at how children who are in families who are out of work or in work on low incomes, are impacted by the suggestions in the report.
The Minister has made a couple of extraordinary statements since the start of Question Time. I am overwhelmed by her boasting about last year's budget when, according to Social Justice Ireland, an organisation with no axe to grind, it was the most socially regressive budget in the last ten years. The Minister said her Department had not been flying kites but there are so many kites coming out of the Department of Social Protection it will need an air traffic control system.
Wherever this proposal came from, or whatever Government supported it, it was proposed last year by the Minister for Finance in the budget. There were two parts to it. First, the domiciliary care allowance for 16 to 18 year olds was to go to the parents instead and, second, the amount was to be cut. I had no problem with the first measure, I could see the reasoning behind the argument that the money should go to the parents, particularly in cases like this.
The second measure, the proposal to cut the amount, however, generated the controversy. The Government withdrew that proposal in the teeth of public opinion.
In withdrawing the proposal the Taoiseach said, this is a case in which the Government has listened. He also said that the Government did not get it right. Now the kite is being flown again, even though the Taoiseach said last year that it was wrong. If it was wrong last year, how is it right this year? Will the Minister give an assurance that she will not proceed with the proposal in her budgetary provisions?
I should tell the House what Social Justice Ireland and other commentators have found in respect of poverty and the social and negative impact of budgets for families on the lower levels of income, whether in work or on social welfare. The biggest reductions with which the Deputy will be familiar, having sat at the Cabinet table when many of these reductions were decided, was the cut of around €16.30 per week in basic core social welfare payments, except for pensioners-----
We also presided over increases.
-----and the significant cuts over which the Government of which he was a member presided in respect of child benefit. When his Government proposed that the early childhood allowance would be converted to a preschool payment I supported that proposal at the time because I considered that we need to concentrate on the delivery of services, and the development of preschool education is important. The Deputy should concentrate less on the flights of rhetoric and a trawl around books we have all studied at school and more on the reality. The fact is that the Government of which the Deputy was a member crashed the country's economy. Nobody wants to cut or reduce a single social welfare payment for anybody because we all recognise how important such payments are to individuals; we know that from our personal lives and from our political work. We have to sort out what was left to us to sort out and we have to make the country capable of being self-sustaining on a financial basis. I welcome the Deputy saying publicly on behalf of Fianna Fáil that he agrees that children of 16 years of age should have payments paid to their parents who care for them. I welcome it because the previous Government recommended exactly that and also that the domiciliary care allowance would continue to be paid up to the age of 18 years. That is what the previous Government and various reports recommended. The Deputy is entitled to forget history entirely.
Just like the Minister has forgotten her promises.
The Deputy should take some responsibility for his Government's history in respect of these matters. When I was in opposition-----
The Minister was reprehensible in her approach in that she supported nothing.
-----I supported a number of the initiatives taken.
The Minister supported more expenditure and less tax.
The Minister to conclude.
If the Deputy wants to say something, will he please stand up and say it and I will listen to what he has to say.
When the Minister was in opposition the whole approach of the Labour Party was to seek less tax and more expenditure.
That is not true.
We are moving away from this question, I want to call Deputy Ó Snodaigh's question.
As a matter of history, what I recommended was that the very large tax allowances which rich people got to spend on property would be reduced and eliminated and that the money thereby saved would go to improve and expand services. If the Deputy wishes to examine the record he will find that is what I said. I supported initiatives such as the early childhood education initiative because I thought emphasising the development of a preschool service was a good way to go.
The Minister is in government.
The Deputy appears to be threatened - but not when in government - by matters being examined and reviewed by groups who bring forward proposals and make suggestions.
There is nothing threatening in that, but the Government then makes the decisions in the best interest of all the people. We have much to learn about how to spend the money better and direct it for better outcomes for children.
The Government also leaks the reports.
I wish to return to the issue of child benefit. Is the Minister aware of the Central Statistics Office survey on income and living conditions which also demonstrates that the income of families fell five times more than the incomes of childless households between 2009 and 2010? It is not always the Minister's fault and we accept that. She inherited chaos but she has added to it. We also accept there is significant spend on child benefit and the other projects she mentioned - family income supplement, qualified child allowance and back to education allowance. Over the years they have prevented greater levels of food poverty and child poverty. It has been reported today that families on low incomes with three or more children are facing food poverty before any changes are made to child benefit.
The other issue grouped in these questions is the issue of access to disability allowance for 16 and 17 year olds. Does the Minister accept that if the proposal made last year to raise the age of disability allowance from 16 to 18 proceeded, the households of young people with disabilities would in fact be cut down as much as €6,000 a year because the domiciliary care allowance is substantially lower than the disability allowance? If the Minister were to follow through on her logic and consider taking disability allowance from those who are 16 and 17, we would introduce a different rate of domiciliary care allowance for those and that would be granted. Is that under serious consideration? Is domiciliary care allowance equal to that of the disability allowance for 16 and 17 year olds? If not then it is a cost-saving measure rather than a concern for children with disabilities having too much money to spend. It is not true that the disability allowance received by 16 and 17 year olds was all spent on enjoyment or misspent. In the majority of cases it is spent on their education and helping their parents ensure they stay in education rather than spent on social life as has been portrayed.
I have never suggested, as the Deputy has just said, that it was spent on people's social lives. I am not aware of that. If the Deputy has some indications in that regard, he might tell us about it, but I have never suggested that. From speaking to parents in receipt of domiciliary care allowance I know-----
I am talking about the suggestion of the Minister, Deputy Noonan.
-----that money is used very carefully and very well for the children. A child of 16 moves on to a full social welfare payment exclusively in his or her own right. A child of 16 is a child. The suggestion is that the income received in respect of 16 or 17 year old children should be paid to their parents because they are living in a family context and that would be better in terms of the family and the child. I have no doubt that if that happens, those parents - we all know how heroic many parents are in the care they give their children - would continue to look after their child with loving care as has always been the case. I do not have any knowledge of the suggestion the Deputy has made.
I do not either.
The advisory group was requested, following announcement of the budget, to look at this on foot of representations made particularly by parents of profoundly disabled children, for whom the job of caring in the home is onerous work for parents. While I have read information on this in the newspapers, I have not received any report from the advisory group.
The advisory group comprises distinguished people involved in issues around poverty, social welfare and disability and of representatives of a number of Departments, including the Departments of Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and Children and Youth Affairs, and the Revenue Commissioners. It seeks to avail of the best of current information on best practices in respect of children and supporting children and their families.
As I said, I have not received any report, although I have read what has been printed about this in the newspapers. When I receive the report, I will look at it carefully, following which I will bring it to Cabinet. However, I must point out that it will be only an advisory report and that, at the end of the day, it is the Government that, in the context of the budget, will decide.
May I ask a brief question?
I am sorry. We are way over time and must move on to Question No. 54 in the name of Deputy Halligan.
Illness Benefit Costs
John Halligan
Question:54. Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for Social Protection the position in relation to transferring the responsibility for the provision of sick pay from the State to employers for the first two to four weeks of illness; if she intends bringing forward accompanying legislation to require employers to pay full sick leave to employees; if she has had any consultations with employers groups IBEC or ISME regarding the implications of this proposal; her views on whether this would widen the gap between the public and private sectors in terms of job security; if she has reached any conclusions on the way they might adequately manage the levels of absenteeism which exists in Government Departments; if she will acknowledge that moving the responsibility of the provision of sick pay entitlements to employers would affect the private sector placing an additional unsupportable burden on many employers who are already struggling in the current economic climate; if she is considering a State sponsored insurance scheme that could mitigate the burden for smaller firms; if she will now acknowledge that this proposal may in fact make Ireland less competitive internationally at a time when we should be promoting markets, creating opportunities for businesses to grow and create sustainable employment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [44934/12]
This is a lengthy question.
I apologise.
It is an important question. I hope the Leas-Cheann Comhairle-----
I am hoping the Minister will give me a detailed reply to it.
There is only six minutes allowed for this question.
I am not sure if I can do full justice to the question in six minutes.
That is the rule.
I thank Deputy Halligan for his question. To set the issue of statutory sick pay in context, total expenditure on the key illness and disability payments administered by the Department, namely, illness benefit, invalidity pension and disability allowance, amounted to some €10.6 billion in the period from 2008 to 2011. Of that amount, some €3.6 billion relates to illness benefit. The estimated cost of the illness benefit scheme in 2012 is €847 million. This, again, is another big ticket item in the Department, as are the cumulative amounts which are over €3 billion per annum.
Against this background, there are a number of compelling reasons the Government is at this time considering the introduction of a scheme of statutory sick pay to cover public and private sector employers. First, it is necessary to take steps to address the deficit in the Social Insurance Fund from which illness benefit, among other insurance-based benefits and pensions, is paid. In 2011, the deficit in the fund was approximately €1.5 billion. Second, such a scheme would help to limit progression from short-term illness to long-term illness or disability, except obviously in the case of people who have a serious disability. Third, it would serve to bring Ireland into line with practice in other countries in this area. Fourth, it would contribute towards enhancing the health of the workforce and achieve active management of absenteeism. This is the way in which the Scandinavian countries, which have good social protection systems, work. They have good outcomes and good social protection systems.
Additional Information not give on the floor of the House
In considering the matter, I am acutely conscious of the pressures facing employers in the current economic climate, and, in particular, the pressures facing smaller and medium-sized enterprises. I am equally conscious of the need to maintain competitiveness, facilitate business opportunities and generate sustainable employment. I would not accept that introducing a scheme of statutory sick pay would necessarily lead to greater job insecurity in the private sector and experience from other countries supports my view. In this regard, I wish to make it clear that the three day waiting period which currently applies in respect of illness benefit would also apply in any scheme of statutory sick pay introduced.
The question of providing for possible compensatory mechanisms for particularly vulnerable employers is just one of a range of complex issues that need to be addressed before any decision could be taken by Government on the possible introduction of a statutory sick pay scheme. Other issues include the extent of coverage, the rate of payment and how a scheme would be enforced. The Department has engaged in wide ranging consultation to date and all of these issues will again be discussed in the course of the wider process associated with the preparation of budget 2013.
The Deputy will be aware that questions associated with absenteeism generally in the public sector are being addressed by my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, and proposals for change in this area are being advanced at present.
I thank the Minister for her reply. While her desire to address the level of absenteeism in the public and private sector is commendable - I do not have a problem with it - like many other people I believe these proposals will have a terrible impact on jobs, in particular in the small and medium business sector. There is much made of the crucial role which multinationals play in the Irish market.
I am fearful the critical role small and medium-sized enterprises play in villages, small towns and city centres is being gravely overlooked. The influential report, A Blueprint for Ireland's Recovery, drafted by leading business figures, places SMEs at the front line of economic recovery. However, the survey released last week by ISME stated 96% of SMEs expect job losses if the Minister's proposals are introduced. SMEs already contribute significantly to the social welfare fund through the PRSI system and cannot take any more. An average of five small companies a week are going bust or are unable to access capital. If the Minister's proposed measures are introduced, they will undoubtedly result in longer dole queues. Those of us on the left are also concerned it may force employers to revisit any sick pay policies they offer, which would be wholly unfair to the workers.
A question for the Minister.
My question is straightforward. I understand there has been little or no dialogue on the proposal with business communities. On many occasions the Chamber of Commerce in Waterford sought a meeting with the Minister. I know she is very busy but at the very least she should have met it. Will the Minister agree to establish an interdepartmental working group with the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to conduct a regulatory impact assessment of these proposals? Will she discuss the practicalities of such proposals with small business groups?
I reassure the Deputy I have had many opportunities to meet business groups and employers of various sized businesses throughout the country. I emphasise that any proposal applies as much to the public sector as the private sector. I am very conscious of the need to maintain competitiveness, facilitate business growth and opportunities, generate sustainable employment and maintain the employment we have. I do not accept that introducing a statutory sick pay scheme would necessarily lead to greater job insecurity in the private sector. We are the only OECD country with our particular structure. According to our proposals, the three-day waiting period which applies at present in respect of illness benefit would also apply in any statutory sick pay scheme introduced.
Another question is whether we need to provide possible compensatory mechanisms for particularly vulnerable employers, including the type of SME referred to by the Deputy. This needs to be addressed and taken into account before any decision can be made by the Government. The difficulty is that illness benefit is paid from a social insurance fund which was in deficit to the tune of €1.5 billion last year and this year it will be €1.82 billion short. The fund from which statutory benefits are paid, and which we all want to keep intact following our earlier discussion, is short of money by a considerable degree. We must address how to restore stability to the social insurance fund over a period of time. It will stabilise enormously as employment returns to the economy but it is the mechanism by which we make payments such as jobseeker's benefit, contributory old age pensions and significant amounts in sickness benefit.
Everyone agrees that expenditure needs to be reduced, but a statutory sick pay scheme cannot be introduced in isolation and cuts that have the least effect on unemployment need to be made.
I have an interesting statistic. According to ISME, the typical number of days lost per annum due to absenteeism in small firms is three compared to the massively inefficient figure of over 12 days in the public sector. The point I am making, which the Minister may have taken on board, is that it is the small to medium-sized businesses which are on the edge. I spoke here a few months ago about a family business whose owners worked 70 hours per week and took home €390 after they paid all their costs and VAT. They are barely surviving, so a small amount of extra costs on their business could turn it over. The same is applicable to businesses across the country.
The Deputy makes the point very well. Based on what we know from various surveys, absenteeism levels are significantly higher in the public sector than in the private sector. I reiterate that the current system, which there are no proposals to change, stipulates that the first three days are not paid for by the employer or the State but are covered by the individual. It is not proposed to change that. The proposal involves having a look at reducing the overall levels of illness, particularly in the public sector, with which my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, is dealing. I do not want to mention the Croke Park agreement but there are certain reforms under discussion and there are positive outcomes. The critical thing internationally is that if issues like illness are dealt with at the firm, group, operations or departmental level, there are much better outcomes for the employees. Otherwise, one risks a situation arising where a percentage of people end up taking long-term illness leave. I am not referring here to those who have an accident or very serious illness which may be life-threatening; that is understood by everybody. However, as the Deputy noted, in parts of the public sector, building up a significant number of sick days has become, unfortunately, something that is an Irish experience. It was so in other countries but they have reformed the system to put the emphasis on wellness at work. For example, if somebody's lifestyle resulted in him or her having repeated periods of illness, the firm and management, be they in the public or private sector, would help that individual to address those difficulties to avoid it becoming a chronic condition and possibly leading to that person leaving the workforce.
Questions Nos. 55 and 56 answered with Question No. 53.