Vol. 1017 No. 7
1. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he is campaigning within Government for the ratification of the international labour convention No. 190, on eliminating violence and harassment in the world of work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6894/22]
The question is a fairly straightforward one. I would like an update on the work being done to adopt and ratify labour convention No. 190. It sounds fairly innocuous but as the Tánaiste and I know, a lot comes from it. I ask for an update on the work currently ongoing in his Department. Specifically, is he pushing for ratification of the convention? I seek an understanding of what stage it is at.
Ireland became a member of the International Labour Organization, ILO, in 1923. It was the first international organisation the new State joined. We have been an active member ever since and in June 2021 we completed our first ever term as a titulaire, or full member, of the governing body of the ILO. Ireland is committed to being among the first ILO member states to ratify convention No. 190. To date, only ten of the 187 member states have ratified the convention and it is in force in three. A campaign within the Government is not necessary as the Government fully supports its ratification as a matter of priority. Ratification is being considered in the context of our standard approach to the ratification of international instruments. Under this approach, Ireland does not ratify a convention until it has been determined that national law is in line with the provisions of the international instrument. Convention No. 190 is the first ever international instrument on the very important issue of eliminating violence and harassment in the world of work. Ireland already has very strong protections in law to combat violence and harassment in the workplace and has ratified the Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, that is, the Istanbul Convention. Officials in my Department are engaging with all relevant Departments and offices to establish the extent to which domestic legislative provisions already provide for the rights and entitlements included in the convention, as well as what legislative amendments, if any, may be required to enable ratification. The Department is currently carrying out an analysis of the outcomes and engaging with legal advisers. Officials are meeting this week to ensure there are no gaps. Following this consideration, as part of the ratification process in the coming months the Department will undertake a stakeholder consultation with trade unions, employer bodies and other interested parties. The views of the Attorney General will also be sought after the consultation phase, followed by the formal approval by the Government of ratification. We anticipate that we will be able to ratify and sign the instrument by July 2022, but certainly no later than the end of the calendar year. A formal ceremony will then take place to present the convention to the director general of the ILO in Geneva.
I thank the Tánaiste for that update. Ten states have already moved ahead of us but it would be good to provide leadership on this. The update is very welcome. The Tánaiste said that our national law has to be in line before the convention can be ratified. I fully appreciate that. One of the important aspects of this convention is that states would be required to put in place laws and measures to address violence in the workplace, including access to paid leave for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. I am sure the Tánaiste is aware that I have legislation on Committee Stage that would do just that. It is an important piece of workers' rights legislation. There is no dissent on this issue and it is in the programme for Government. I encourage the Tánaiste to work with me to get this legislation through so we can be in the best position to ratify the convention. It is welcome that the Government is focused on ratification but, as the Tánaiste has acknowledged, there are some gaps that need to be addressed.
As I mentioned earlier, ten countries have signed the convention and three have it in force. Different countries adopt different approaches to these things. Some countries sign things and spend ten or 20 years actually bringing them into force. We try to bring everything into force and then ratify, which I think is a better approach in the round. What we are doing at the moment is seeing if there are any gaps in our laws that we need to resolve before we sign. This will probably slip as these things tend to slip but the intention is that a memorandum will go to the Government in June, we will sign in July and do the formal handover in Geneva in August. These things tend to slip by a few months so my commitment is to have it done in this calendar year.
I appreciate that the Deputy has proposed legislation relating to paid leave for victims of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence but the Government is doing some work on that too. It might be possible to include it in legislation that the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth is dealing with at the moment. He is bringing the EU directive on flexible work into Irish law. That has to be done by August so that might be the mechanism by which we deal with that issue.
That might be the mechanism and my legislation might also be the mechanism. We have had a lot of engagement on the floor of the Dáil on the need to take swift action in the area of gender-based violence. This is a fundamental piece of legislation. As a workplace representative, I have seen people - usually women but not always - in this situation. Enacting my Bill would be in line with the Government's objective of making sure all the ducks are in a row prior to signing and ratification. I welcome that a date has been set although I understand that might not be fulfilled and that the commitment is to do it by the end of the year. I encourage the Tánaiste to engage with my legislation because it is written and ready to go. It was introduced by us in 2019 but we could not bring it through due to the fall of the previous Dáil. It is written by the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers, OPLA, and is very simple legislation that amends the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. It would bring us in line and put us in a good position to sign the convention.
I am not sure if we have to bring in that formal leave as a requirement of the convention. I would have to double-check that. Regardless, I think it is accepted across the House that it is a good idea and it has been done in some other countries. We need to engage with the Deputy on that, as well as with employer bodies, the unions and the office of the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth.
2. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will initiate an emergency review of the minimum wage given the rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7066/22]
Yesterday, the Dáil unanimously passed a motion calling for the following steps to be taken: an emergency review of the national minimum wage; mandating an increase that would at least cover the rise in the cost of living as it impacts on the low paid; a new rate to be in place by 1 May; and for it to be index-linked. The Tánaiste voted for that motion. His party voted for it. I understand that legislation may need to be amended in order to fully implement it. The Dáil having passed that motion unanimously, what steps does the Government now intend to take to make it a reality?
I thank Deputy Barry for his question and for the motion we discussed and debated yesterday. We went through the various mechanisms we can use to achieve the results he is seeking. The Government is keenly aware, as we stressed during yesterday's debate, of the pressures people are feeling as the rate of inflation and the cost of living increase. Many costs have increased sharply in recent times and those on lower incomes are being disproportionately affected. Ministers and their officials in various Departments have been tasked with developing proposals for a package to help families and businesses with the cost of living and doing business. The Government is finalising that package this week.
Since its establishment in 2015, the Low Pay Commission has been responsible for making annual recommendations to the Government on the appropriate rate of the national minimum wage. Again, this was discussed yesterday. Since then, the national minimum wage has increased from €8.65 per hour to €10.50 per hour between 2016 and 2022, which is a 21.4% increase. This compares with an increase in consumer prices of 7% in the six years to December 2021, demonstrating that the minimum wage has increased in real terms over consumer price increases in recent years. As I discussed with the Deputy yesterday, if we followed the proposals in his motion, they would possibly result in a lower minimum wage, which I do not think is an outcome he would recommend to anybody. The share of workers on the minimum wage in Ireland has also fallen consistently since the establishment of the Low Pay Commission, reducing from 9.3% in the fourth quarter of 2016 to 6.8% in the fourth quarter of 2020.
The Low Pay Commission is made up of an equal number of employer representatives, employee representatives and independent members which helps to provide a balanced view when determining an appropriate rate for the national minimum wage. In addition, the establishing legislation requires the commission to give consideration to a range of issues when arriving at a recommendation for the appropriate national minimum wage rate. These issues include the cost-of-living, competitiveness and the likely effect that any proposed recommendation will have on future levels of employment.
When considering increases in the national minimum wage during a period of inflation, the Government must be conscious of the need to avoid second round effects or a wage-price spiral. That being said, we have been clear in my commitment to improving pay and terms and conditions for everyone, but particularly for those on lower pay.
In 2021, the Low Pay Commission was asked by the Tánaiste to examine and make recommendations on the best approach to achieving the programme for Government commitment to progress to a living wage over the lifetime of the Government. The Low Pay Commission commissioned and received background technical research on the concept of a living wage. The commission is currently evaluating this research and is due to report its findings and recommendations to the Tánaiste in the coming months. These recommendations will inform the Government on the best approach to progressing to a living wage. In relation to the minimum wage, they generally will report to us in July and decisions are made after that.
Deputy Barry will recall that yesterday, during the debate, I discussed with him that we do not necessarily agree with his mechanism. We did not vote against the Deputy's proposal but the mechanism he put forward is a predetermined outcome of the work that the Low Pay Commission was set up to do. That is not necessarily the best way for the commission to go about its business.
The Government is ignoring a decision of the Dáil.
The cost-of-living package that is being reported in media this morning and watched carefully by low-paid workers involves increased electricity credit, an extension of fuel allowance and the bringing forward of the working family payment by two months. Of course, groceries are up €800 a year, petrol is up €500 a year and electricity is up €800 a year. That is more than €2,000 before we get to the rent. Putting the Government proposals in that context, they not only fall short but very far short of what working people and ordinary families need.
I put it to the Minister of State, Deputy English, that bolder measures are needed, such as the scrapping of the universal social charge, USC, which was meant to be gone by now. If the Government is concerned about the cost that might have to the State, we would have no problem if it brought in a higher income service charge of 10% on incomes of more than €90,000 a year. What does the Minister of State have to say on the proposal to abolish the USC?
The Government is finalising a package of measures to respond to the inflationary measures which are putting significant pressure on families and individuals, and have been doing so over the past couple of months. They build on the changes announced in the budget, where there was a tax package and there was a social welfare package. There was a minimum wage increase recommendation accepted, which kicked in last month. We are recognising that people are under pressure out there right across the system. We also recognise that some of these measures, in relation to energy prices, Brexit and Covid, are outside of our control. We expect them to be short term but they are having a significant impact this year. Naturally, the Government is responding with a range of measures to assist individuals and families during this difficult time. The announcement of that will be completed in the next couple of days.
In relation to Deputy Barry's calls on the USC and other charges, I do not recall in the Deputy's budget submission that he wanted to completely abolish that tax but I must look again at it to be sure.
The Government must.
We must be careful in relation to taxes and jobs as well. Much of the time, the changes Deputy Barry puts forward in relation to the tax system are in our view anti-jobs and anticompetitive. That will not help us as we try to drive a recovery from Covid through a jobs-led recovery.
If the Government will not provide real relief for working people and ordinary families, unfortunately working people will have no alternative but to seek real relief themselves. We are calling on working people to organise in the workplace to submit pay claims which at least match the cost-of-living increases and to fight to achieve them. In the UK, the Unite trade union has won cost-of-living increases in 25 workplaces by balloting for industrial action and by taking industrial action where necessary. In many cases, the threat of industrial action was sufficient. That is an example that should be followed in this country. If workers go back and delve into the best traditions of the labour movement - the traditions of the 1960s and 1970s and the traditions of the founders of the movement, Connolly and Larkin - to fight for pay increases, we can achieve the cost-of-living increases that the Government seems set to deny us.
I have nothing more to add bar that the Government is responding to this.
I listened to Deputy Barry, yesterday and again today, with his call for action. I have listened to the Deputy in the past on other disputes and other issues as well. People who followed Deputy Barry's advice previously often got bad advice from him and were misinformed or brought down the wrong path. I would ask anybody to look at what the Government is doing. We are engaging through the mechanisms we have always had - our response to the Low Pay Commission, the living wage and our work with the union representative bodies and employer bodies - to try to get the correct balance in relation to job creation, jobs recovery and jobs protection, and to recognise the need for increases across the various mechanisms of wages and supports to businesses and families. However, Deputy Barry has a particular drive and a particular aim of what he wants to do.
So does the Minister of State. The Government cut the minimum wage.
I would ask anybody who wants to follow Deputy Barry's advice to look at his record over the past two years and the advice he doled out.
Look at their record. They cut the minimum wage.
3. Deputy Maurice Quinlivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the status of the establishment of the corporate enforcement agency; the number of staff hired to date; and the scheduled commencement date of the authority. [7198/22]
My question is on the corporate enforcement agency, the authority that will be set up. I believe it will be a crucial tool in the fight against white-collar crime. I ask for an update on the number of staff who have been hired to date and on the scheduled commencement of the authority. Can we have an update on that? As chair of the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I appreciate I got a letter from the Tánaiste telling me the Garda has committed a staffing allocation for the new authority, increasing from seven to 16. The Minister might give us a timeframe for when the Department's recruitment drive will be completed and when the authority will be operating.
As the Deputy will be aware, last year I brought the Companies (Corporate Enforcement Authority) Bill through the Houses of the Oireachtas, and for which we received cross-party support for which I am thankful. On 22 December 2021, it was signed by the President into law. This landmark legislation will transform the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, ODCE, into a statutory and independent agency to be known as the corporate enforcement authority, CEA, which will have additional resources to investigate and prosecute white-collar crime. The legislation will provide the authority with greater autonomy and flexibility to adapt to the challenges of encouraging greater compliance with and enforcement of company law. As I said then, it is our firm intention to commence all aspects of the Act as soon as possible, once the organisational matters integral to the establishment of the authority have been finalised.
Last Thursday, the Minister of State, Deputy English, signalled in the Dáil our intention to make a simple but necessary amendment to address a cross-referencing error to a Schedule in the Act. The Tánaiste wrote to Deputy Quinlivan to inform him of that. The Government has approved the drafting of an amendment on Committee Stage of the Redundancy Payments (Amendment) Bill 2022, which is currently before the Dáil, and which it is hoped will be enacted without undue delay. In parallel, commencement orders are being drafted to commence the relevant provisions of the Act after its amendment.
I am mindful of the focus given to the resourcing of the CEA by Members as the Bill proceeded through the Oireachtas. On resourcing, my Department approved sanction for an increase of 35% on existing Civil Service numbers. Recruitment for these additional 14 staff is under way. A clerical officer and digital forensics manager have already been assigned. The post of director of governance and support operations will be filled shortly. The recruitment process is also under way for the posts of director of finance and ICT and a senior enforcement lawyer. I am satisfied that the CEA is being provided with the civilian staff it needs.
On Garda resourcing, the Garda Commissioner has committed that the number of members of An Garda Síochána assigned to the CEA will increase from seven to 16.
I thank the Minister of State. We all are supportive of this legislation. Granting the new authority autonomy over the appointment of its resources is necessary, as we all argued for during the course of the passage of the Bill. The power to recruit its own staff according to the skills the authority envisages to be necessary is a key component of the independence of the CEA. The long-awaited new authority must demonstrate from the get-go that it has the strongest powers and can ensure those involved in white-collar crime get the harshest of penalties where possible. With a more co-ordinated approach from all the State agencies involved in combating white-collar crime, it can assure this type of crime is not ignored, as, unfortunately, was the case on many occasions in the past.
I understand, as the Minister of State said, that there is a slight technical problem with the Act. Assuming this is corrected quickly, which we hope it will be, and the Minister of State will have my party's full support on that, has he a date in mind as to when he envisages the agency will be established as an independent and functioning body? Basically, when will it be set up?
We all abhor white-collar crime and that is why we prioritised this legislation in the previous session. As I said, I am thankful for the support we received from the committee, of which the Deputy is Chairman, and indeed all Members of this House, to progress the necessary legislation.
Deputy Quinlivan is correct; one of the key aspects is to ensure that the authority is adequately resourced and that it has autonomy to recruit the expertise that is needed. We have committed to that. The budget has increased by approximately 50% since 2018 and the civilian staffing level has increased by 35%. The level of Garda staff will increase by 50% by the time all staff are transferred across. There are still some ongoing discussions between the ODCE and An Garda Síochána. We expect those discussions to be successfully concluded shortly and we are hopeful that with the amendment Bill the Minister of State, Deputy English, is bringing before the Oireachtas it will be up and functioning in the coming months.
As I previously mentioned, I am keen to see the authority established in the quickest possible timeframe. We in Sinn Féin believe the new authority with autonomy of action would best serve to tackle the concerns regarding corporate crime. The perception that corruption and so-called white-collar crime are not adequately detected and punished damage the economy and threaten our international reputation as a reliable place to do business. Therefore, it is welcome that we are dealing with it and setting up the new authority.
White-collar crime also breeds cynicism in society on the basis that it appears that certain crimes are treated more leniently than others. A significantly important part of the establishment of the CEA relates to the work of the Companies Registration Office, CRO. I have raised this previously. On the back of reports by the Irish Independent journalist, John Mulligan, about the CRO and the suggestion that hundreds of fake companies have been established, I received communication from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in July last year in which it outlined the importance of the CEA Bill and the provision requiring company directors to provide personal public service numbers to the CRO. This is an important provision and is a further reason why we need this agency set up as soon as possible. I am sure the Minister of State would agree. I am happy to support him in progressing it.
We are very much in unison on this. Everybody in the Oireachtas wants to ensure that the authority is up and running as quickly as possible but we want to ensure that it is up and running correctly from the very first day. That is why we need to ensure that the drafting error that was discovered in the amendment Bill is addressed. We have a mechanism to do so in regard to the Bill the Minister of State, Deputy English, is bringing forward. We must also ensure that the arrangement between An Garda Síochána and the ODCE is finalised and put on a permanent basis going forward. Negotiations in regard to that are almost complete. When they are completed, a memorandum of understanding will be signed by both the CEA and An Garda Síochána and at that stage it will be the right time to commence this new authority, which is something we all want to see. I assure Deputy Quinlivan that there is no resistance on this side of the House. We will have the authority set up and operational in the coming months.
4. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of business closures over the past five years; and the total value of business supports that have been provided by his Department as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. [6406/22]
Over the past two years Ireland has seen the implementation of the longest and most severe restrictions anywhere in Europe. That has had a massive negative effect on many elements of society, from cancer care to domestic violence, mental health etc. Small businesses especially have suffered significantly over that period. Many were hammered and are now what are called zombie businesses, only functioning because of the supports they have got. What supports will they be given now to ensure they survive?
We certainly had prolonged restrictions in Ireland, perhaps longer than in many other countries, including other countries in Europe. It does depend on how you define restrictions. Some people define it as working from home and other people define it as business closures and so on. It is worth pointing out that Ireland is now one of the most open countries in the world. Most European countries still have restrictions in place. Businesses are closed and there are restrictions on opening hours. People are not able to stand at a bar and nightclubs are closed, among other measures. We are now one of the most open countries in Europe. Much of south-east Asia is still pursuing a zero-Covid policy and is still in lockdown. Restrictions were tightened in Hong Kong the other day, for example.
In terms of business supports, it is fair to say that the Government has not been found wanting when it comes to supporting the economy and jobs, providing a robust and sustained multibillion euro package that compares well internationally. The employment wage subsidy scheme, EWSS, has been extended even though many other countries ended their furlough schemes months ago.
At around €40 billion, the cumulative level of fiscal support made available in 2020 and 2021 has been unprecedented. It is the largest single intervention in the Irish economy since the banking crisis, but I think we would all agree it is a much better one. The ability to apply countercyclical fiscal policy in this way has been made possible only by the prudent management of the public finances in the preceding years. The official and most comprehensive data on business closures is provided by the Central Statistics Office. The data are only available for up to 2018 because the Revenue Commissioners need two years of inactivity to count a company as closed. The latest information indicates there were 15,337 closures in 2014 and 17,807 in 2018. A full table will be provided to the Deputy in written form.
Data from my Department can provide a proxy for business closures but with some caveats. The CRO provides data on companies liquidated, including where members or creditors wind up a company or if liquidation is by a court order. Total liquidations in 2016 were 1,754 and 1,489 in 2020. Again, I will provide the Deputy with further data in written form.
I am glad the Tánaiste did compare the monetary elements of the crisis to the banking crisis because it is in that space financially. A figure of €40 billion is a phenomenal amount of money that has built up cost-wise over the past two years. A lot of that was necessary. The Tánaiste should not get me wrong; I am aware the Government had to make difficult decisions over that period, but we are talking about an enormous economic impact. Last year, we had a deficit of €9 billion, and we have a deficit this year in the billions as well and a national debt approaching a quarter of a trillion euro currently in the State. We are talking about a situation where interest rates are about to take off and the effect that will have on society, families and businesses. Inflation is another issue.
Approximately €3 billion in business taxes is being warehoused as businesses have not been able to pay them. That cohort of businesses is in a precarious situation going forward. How will they be helped?
Deputy Tóibín is correct; a €40 billion rescue for the economy is huge. It is probably the second biggest intervention in the history of the State and the biggest after the banking crisis. We all agree it is a much better one in terms of the number of jobs and livelihoods that were protected, but we do now have a national debt approaching a quarter of a trillion euro, which is enormous. We had a relatively low national debt before the banking crisis ten or 12 years ago. We accumulated a lot of debt dealing with the financial crisis. We had started to pay it down and along comes the pandemic. In the context of people calling for measures earlier such as the abolition of the USC, for example, or much better packages than the Government can do today, we must not forget the point Deputy Tóibín made, that we owe a quarter of a trillion euro. We cannot lose sight of that. It may have appeared that there is no limitation on Government spending in recent years, but that is not true and that is going to come back to affect us.
I am sorry, I am digressing. When it comes to what we can do, the EWSS stays in place for a period. The main thing we can do with companies is restructuring. We brought in the SCARP process, which is now under way exactly for that reason, so that companies can restructure their debts and survive.
We know there are 4,700 childcare providers in limbo at the moment due to the difficulty regarding funding. We also know that approximately 40,000 people who worked in the hospitality industry in 2019 are not expected to be there in 2022. We further know that there is a significant number of zombie businesses. I do not like using that term because it seems sensationalist, but it does convey the true picture of a whole lot of businesses that stayed alive simply because they have had Government supports and, as the supports fall away, they have to start to deal with the debt and difficulties they are in. Could the Tánaiste tell me exactly how many businesses have had restructuring facilitated for them so that they now have a restructuring plan in place that they can work through?
How many businesses does the Minister expect will be lost in 2022 as collateral damage of the restrictions and what has happened over the last two years?
Even before the pandemic, there was a churn in businesses and, in any given year, some businesses close and new businesses are established. In fact, businesses that would have closed anyway perhaps survived because of the measures that we took in regard to the wage subsidy scheme and so on. We expect that when the wage subsidy scheme and the other financial supports are withdrawn, and they are being withdrawn over the next couple of months, we will see some of those non-viable businesses fail, and that is inevitable. One of the effects of that, though, will be freeing up employees to work in businesses that are viable. We have a huge issue at the moment, which the Deputy mentioned, of people in certain sectors who are unable to get staff yet we are subsidising employment in businesses that are no longer viable. When that happens, I think we will see a certain churn in the economy and the labour market of people moving into those businesses that actually are viable.
Obviously, our objective is to save any business that can be saved. I do not have numbers on the small company administrative rescue process, SCARP, yet because it is only new. There are the existing mechanisms such as examinership and so on, but we think SCARP is a much better one and we are only starting to see the first few companies coming through that.
5. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will consider for provision to be made for limited periods of self-certified sick leave under the proposed sick leave Bill until such time as free and universal general practitioner care is introduced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7199/22]
The Tánaiste will by now have received the pre-legislative scrutiny report from the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The debate on self-certification or medical certification was pretty robust, as the Tánaiste can imagine. I put down this question because I want to hear the Tánaiste's views and hear if he can understand the quandary the committee found itself in, inasmuch as this is a very important public health measure. Access to sick leave is extremely important but there is a financial barrier that specifically impacts on workers on low incomes.
I have the received the report and while I have not had a proper chance to read it from cover to cover yet, I will. I am keen to get the legislation into the House in the next couple of weeks.
Introducing statutory sick leave is part of the pandemic dividend, the more inclusive economy and fairer society we want to build. It is one of five new workers' rights being established this year, the other four being a new public holiday; the right to request remote working and the right to flexible working; new rights around redundancy for people laid off during the pandemic; and better protection of workplace tips and gratuities.
Ireland is an outlier among developed OECD countries in not providing for any statutory paid sick leave. I do not think it is right that people feel forced to go to work when they are sick and it is certainly not good for public health. The Bill is intended to provide a level of protection for low-paid employees who may have no company sick pay schemes and, therefore, cannot afford to miss work. As a starting point, this scheme will cover the three waiting days before eligibility for illness benefit from the State kicks in. This is a progressive Bill and will ensure all employees are better off and will have financial protection from day one of a medically certified absence.
Taking account of the current economic climate, the initial period covered by employers will be modest but will increase incrementally. We must be mindful of imposing excessive costs on employers, particularly small businesses, many of whom have had a very difficult two years with Covid and Brexit. That is why we are taking an incremental approach to introducing the scheme.
The legislation will provide for sick pay of 70% of gross salary up to a cap of €110 for three working days in a calendar year, and will eventually go to ten days. I believe it would be unreasonable to introduce a legal obligation for employers to pay for sick leave without the need for a worker to produce evidence for this in the form of a medical certificate. That would not be sick leave; it would be a different form of leave. The requirement for a medical certificate for paid sick leave is a fair and necessary provision. It is also not an unusual requirement. Employees are currently required to provide medical certificates to access the State illness benefit scheme and it is a requirement in many sectoral and company level sick pay arrangements.
I thank the committee for its work on the pre-legislative scrutiny report. We will consider it carefully and I will bring the Bill to the Cabinet as soon as possible.
The Tánaiste mentioned people who cannot afford to stay off work. It is important that people who are sick have the comfort of knowing they can stay off work, and we all agree on that. However, there are people who cannot afford to go to the doctor. What I am trying to put into the Tánaiste's head and what I am asking him to consider is the case of a worker who cannot access this. They might have €55 or €60 in their pocket but that could be the money they have to do them for the rest of the week. In a situation where a worker does not have the necessary funds to be able to go to the GP, that worker is left in a quandary, as I am sure the Tánaiste can see. They cannot afford to take the day off work and they cannot afford to go to the doctor where the certification is required.
I fully understand the need to phase it in and we will work with the Tánaiste to get this legislation through. However, we cannot have a situation where workers have access to a statutory sick pay scheme that they cannot access because they do not have access to the funds to go to a GP.
I should say that as the House will be aware and as is always the case with any workers rights legislation, this legislation is the minimum floor. It will not prevent employers having superior sick pay schemes to that which is required by law and that will happen in many cases. There will be employers who will not require a sick certificate for the first day or may only require it for the second or third day. However, to actually require an employer in law to give somebody paid sick leave without any evidence would not be right or fair and it would change it from being sick leave to being a different form of leave. I just do not think that would be the right thing to do.
The solution to this is through the GMS medical card system. At the moment, about 40% of people in the country either have a medical card or a doctor visit card, so those on the lowest incomes currently do not have to pay to see their doctor. I appreciate there are people on low pay who do not qualify for a medical card or a doctor visit card, and the Deputy and I encounter them all of the time in our work as constituency Deputies. To me, the solution is improving the eligibility limits and making more people eligible for the doctor visit card and the medical card, rather than requiring employers to pay sick pay to somebody who does not produce evidence that they are sick.
Approximately 16% of people who are at work are covered by the medical card, so that would need to be much broader. The committee was grappling with this point. The Tánaiste mentioned that we are an outlier, which we are in terms of not having a statutory sick pay scheme, but we are also an outlier in that the vast majority of people have to pay to go to their GP. In the absence of access to GP care without cost, or without a cost to the individual going there, it is unfair to put that in place. In the countries the Tánaiste is referring to where certification is required on the first day as part of a statutory sick pay scheme, those workers have access to a GP that they do not have to fund out of their own pockets. That is where the problem is. It could be that a short-term solution is required while we await the establishment of a GP service that is free at the point of delivery. We are not there yet and we are not nearly there, so the fact is there will be workers who have to make that decision. The Tánaiste and I both agree that sick pay is an important instrument of public health but it cannot only be for people who can afford to access the GP while we wait for GP services that are free at the point of delivery to be introduced.
It is important to say that the sick pay we are providing for is up to €110 a day, so if a person is off sick for three days, they would get up to €330. If we compare that to north of the Border, for example, it is £90 a week, so it is a much more generous sick pay scheme than-----
They have access to a GP without having to pay for it, so it is apples and oranges.
Even accounting for that, it is a much more generous sick pay scheme than exists north of the Border.
At the top rate-----
The truth hurts, does it not?
No, it is not that.
Order, please.
As a serious policy point, I get the dilemma and I hear what the Deputy is saying. I really think the solution is not in paying sick pay to people who do not have to produce any evidence that they are sick. The solution is in improving access to GP care and healthcare, and raising the eligibility limits. It is not 40% of workers but 40% of people who receive free GP care in Ireland. We can improve that and we can raise the eligibility limits or, alternatively, we can use the treatment benefits system to perhaps recoup some of the costs of attending a GP in the way that is done for a dentist, for example, or an optician.
