I move amendment No. 2: In page 5, to delete lines 23 to 25. We welcome that we are here tonight to introduce a right to statutory sick leave, which is positive. It is a shame that it took a global pandemic to get Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil there, but here we are. This amendment aims to make sick leave a real and substantial reality for workers from the word go, as opposed to the Government's proposal. The Government's proposal is to start with three days and then, subject to the whims of the Minister, we may go up …

The Tánaiste's arguments in favour of sick pay and why it is good are all arguments for allowing workers to have sick pay for the days they are sick. That is the bottom line. They are also arguments in favour of amendment No. 18 which proposes to decrease the limits on the actual number of days. If we were lucky enough to have a left Government - hopefully one with an eco-socialist programme - it could then decide not to take the snail-pace approach of the Government of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael but instead rapidly…

I move amendment No. 4: In page 5, to delete lines 30 to 35. This amendment proposes to delete the requirement for an employee to have 13 weeks of continuous employment before being entitled to sick pay. This was one of the most problematic aspects of the Bill, as drafted. There is a Government amendment in this regard, which I will come to presently.

I thank Deputy Ó Ríordáin and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The issue here is that a very gross discrimination was created by the Government's proposal, whereby an employee whose service was interrupted would go back to zero, lose his or her rights to sick pay and have to work up the 13 weeks again. This meant that the Bill, as drafted, excluded many of the most vulnerable workers the Government claims to be trying to protect. Those who are under the most pressure to go to work even if they are sick were left in a sit…

I will zone in on that. The wording in amendment No. 7 states: "...where an employee ceases to be the employee of an employer and, not more than 26 weeks after the date of cesser, the employee again becomes the employee of the employer, the period of service of that employee with that employer before the date of cesser shall be deemed to be continuous with the period of service of that employee with that employer after again becoming such employee". The Minister is stating definitively that this does not just cover…

That would go a very long way to addressing the main substantial point.

It is hard to read out.

I move amendment No. 11: In page 6, to delete lines 11 and 12. I will be reasonably brief on this series of amendments as we are eager to get to amendment No. 30. This is a series of amendments deleting various considerations on which the Minister is meant to base his decision as to whether he increases the number of days of sick leave. The considerations I am seeking to delete are the state of the economy, competitiveness, the state of economic sectors and employers and the views of employers, and I can tell the M…

I move amendment No. 13: In page 6, lines 14 and 15, to delete “the economy generally, specific sectors of the economy, employers or”.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 6, line 20, to delete “employer representative bodies and”.

I move amendment No. 15: In page 6, to delete line 21 and substitute the following: “(f) the effects of inflation on the cost of living for employees.”.

I move amendment No. 16: In page 6, line 22, to delete “The order first’’ and substitute “An order”. This amendment would mean the number of sick days can only be increased by future Ministers from three upwards, as opposed to the prospect of future Governments actually being able to reduce the number of days down to a floor of three. If we are going to say to workers we are introducing it at three days, which we think is very minimal, and it will go up to ten and then, it is hoped, up from there, the idea that inc…

I move amendment No. 18: In page 6, to delete lines 29 and 30.

I move amendment No. 21: In page 7, line 4, after “day” to insert “equivalent to one hundred per cent of an employee’s pay”. This group of amendments deals with the rate of sick pay. All our amendments are effectively trying to get sick pay of 100%. The level of sick pay proposed by the Government is low, let us be honest. It allows for 70% of pay at up to a maximum of €110 per day. This means when it starts, workers will get a maximum of €330 sick pay per year in the first year of the scheme. That is less than one…

I move amendment No. 24: In page 7, to delete lines 5 to 19.

I move amendment No. 28: In page 8, to delete lines 20 to 38, and in page 9, to delete lines 1 to 30.

I am against the amendment. The original 20 weeks' remuneration was a significant punishment and deterrent for employers who did not pay. Four weeks rather than two shifts the balance slightly but, unfortunately, there will definitely be employers who will think they might get away with not paying workers their sick pay entitlements and the worst that can happen is a penalty of four weeks' pay so they will take the risk. This provision does not apply to employers who do the right thing and provide sick pay. This is…

I have one more question. The Tánaiste mentioned legal advice. What did the legal advice state? It can only state there may be a constitutional issue in respect of Deputies drafting legislation because we are clearly changing the law. I am intrigued by that.

Clinically appropriate.

The Taoiseach cannot keep saying it as if it makes it that way.