I will try to cover most of the points raised. I had a note on some of the points made earlier but, for the life of me, I cannot find it, so if I do not answer some of the Senators' points, I ask them to throw them back at me and I will try to come back on them. I do not know where I put my note.
Before turning to the amendments, an issue was made earlier of amendments not being accepted by the Government. I wish to be absolutely clear that the Government does not decide which amendments are appropriate and which are not. We can speak to amendments and we can agree or disagree, but that is done independently of us. Senators can nod or wink all they want, but I am absolutely clear on that. I have no role as a Minister of State in deciding what is ruled in or out of order. The Chair might wish to clarify that. It is unfair of Members to put such comments on the record because they know I do not and cannot, as a Minister of State, decide such matters. I wish to be very clear on that. I am happy to discuss any amendment. People know that I will talk all day. I certainly would not rule anybody's amendment in or out. That is not my job.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 18, inclusive, would require sick leave to be paid at a person's full rate of pay. This is, in the Government's view, likely to have a disproportionate impact on SMEs, particularly those in the service sector. We have tried to give the greatest certainty possible to employers in setting out our plans. We cannot support these amendments. We spoke about this quite a lot earlier and on other Stages of the Bill. We understand that this is bringing in a new statutory sick pay scheme. It is an additional cost to employers. Let us be very clear about that. We can discuss different rates of pay and so on, but the cost of this will fall to employers. At the moment, employees do not have a statutory sick pay scheme in many cases. They do not have access to this at all. We want to bring this in and we believe a rate of 70% is appropriate. I have said it before and I will say it again: we can keep an eye on this, we will monitor and review it as we go along and we can discuss it because it is in regulation. I will come back to that point in a minute. We think it is important it is kept in regulation. If at some stage it is decided it should change, it is easier to do so in regulation than in primary legislation. We think 70% is appropriate to get that balance right because we value these jobs. We value the companies, no matter what sector they are in, whether childcare, hospitality, retail or any other sector. There are different rates of pay. These jobs, as well as employees, have to be protected. We look for the balance there and we believe that 70% is a balance.
As for amendment No. 17, setting an absolute minimum amount could give rise to some strange effects for employees who work short hours. For example, if a person is due to work for three or four hours, their employer could end up having to pay them more for a sick day than they would be entitled to on a normal working day. That is an anomaly put forward if a minimum amount is set. We are setting a minimum rate. The former would be a clearly unfair result, so I cannot accept amendment No. 17. In general, the regulation will deal with the 70% rate. We think it is appropriate. We will review this legislation. We have always said that. We will keep it in play and we can look at it again and focus on it if need be and if Members so wish. The legislation will provide for a replacement rate of 70% of gross salary for a duration of three working days in a calendar year, coupled with a 70% rate of pay. The application of a daily earnings cut-off point of €110 will ensure that employers do not face excessive costs and that jobs are not jeopardised. We genuinely believe we are getting the balance right on that. We can discuss this all night. We will not necessarily agree on it. It is important we discuss it.
Senator Gavan, I think, referred to a debate earlier during which I spoke about the minimum wage and said that less than 10% of the people in this country are on the minimum wage. It could be 7% or 8%. I am open to correction. I did not say they were on €12 or €13; I referred to the minimum wage. We are committed as a Government to bringing the minimum wage up to a living wage. As a country and a Government, we are setting out a roadmap on that. We are happy to pursue that over the coming years in conjunction with these Houses. It is important we do that too.
As for the costs to employers, I have engaged quite a lot with employers over the past year and a half through this discussion. The issue of replacement costs for some sectors is there already. It is not really an issue. If they are using agency workers, there might be an extra charge in that regard. That is an issue. Childcare, which has been referred to, is a difficulty. We can look at that again. Section 10 provides that if an employer can prove that he or she genuinely cannot afford to pay for this, there is a route to go down, as there is with the minimum wage.
It is not very often used, although it is there as a mechanism and it is in this legislation as well. We spoke earlier about the whole area of the extra costs on employers and getting that balance right. This is an extra cost on employers and we have to be very careful that it does not impact jobs and erode jobs. Naturally, we will be keeping that under review as well. I spoke on Committee Stage and the Tánaiste also spoke in the Dáil around trying to see if there is some way in which we could assist where we can genuinely see employers are under pressure.
With regard to the amendments in the group, speakers referred to the Local Jobs Alliance. My understanding from some of the correspondence is that this focuses beyond the three days. When it increases to the five days and eventually to the ten days that we are committed to, that becomes a major issue for them. Some say they could probably handle the three-day cost but as it goes to five days, seven days and ten days, it becomes a major cost. It is something we should continue to engage on. I cannot commit to making changes here but we have said we will look at this.
Similar to the conversation earlier around the 70% and the maximum of €110, we are trying to get the balance right. We think a gradual increase over four years makes it doable for businesses and they would accept that. If we brought in the ten days straightaway, which would be extreme, it would put extreme pressure on businesses and the SME sector. It would not be manageable and would jeopardise jobs. We have tried to bear in mind the pressures the sector has been under for the last couple of years and the current high-cost environment. It is a difficult time. Bringing it in in stages over four years is appropriate and should ease it in for businesses.
We recognise this is putting extra costs on businesses and it is something we will keep under review. As the Tánaiste said before and I will say again, we will monitor this to see if we need to work with the various sectors to bring in some sort of assistance. That is something we will deal with as we go along. We think we have the balance right but I am aware some sectors are under a lot of pressure to absorb these costs. I have made the case that for smaller businesses, any increases in costs, even in the minimum wage alone, can take a few thousand euro off profits at the end of the year, and those profits might not be excessive and they might even be taken from the wage of the employer. We are conscious that they cannot always pass on the costs.
Likewise, the sick pay scheme is increasing costs. We will commit to reviewing that. This was raised on Committee Stage and we said we would track it to see if there is a way to deal with it. Similar to the cost of healthcare and the cost of a GP, it is possibly a conversation that is outside this legislation and it might be had through our business development agencies and jobs agencies, and it would have to be discussed across different Departments. We have held the view that it does not really belong in this legislation. Nonetheless, I understand what the ask is and that there should be assistance. It is very similar to the ask to reduce the costs of a GP. We are all trying to get a balance. As we pursue reducing the cost of access to a GP, on one side, which I would say does not belong in the legislation, on the other side, supports for businesses and SMEs are something we have to work on as well. Many supports are provided by the taxpayer through all of the various agencies and through the Department to assist businesses and jobs, but that discussion might not belong in this legislation. I hope that is of assistance.
On the last point, I do not know why the Senator said the legislation is written assuming that someone is not going to be sick. That is not written anywhere in the legislation. The Senator made a comment earlier around the 70% that it is as if we are assuming somebody is not sick and is looking for this. We are not assuming that at all and I want to be very clear on that. The legislation in no way gives that impression.
