Has the Minister any plans to introduce flexible working hours in relation to sick leave? Perhaps they could be given credit for attendance as is the case in the system of normal flexible working hours.

I am not sure that I follow the Deputy's line of argument. Sick leave falls into two categories, certified and uncertified sick leave.

I am speaking about uncertified sick leave.

Is the Deputy suggesting that hours might be worked up on a flexi-time basis to compensate for uncertified sick leave?

No. At present people are rewarded for working flexible hours. Before this system was in operation there was no incentive to sign on earlier and work later and it is well known that people did not stick to the regulations. Under the flexi-time system they have to do so because the system is automated and there is an incentive to build up a day or so per month. I am asking the Minister to extend that system to cover uncertified sick leave as an incentive for people to attend.

To qualify for flexi-time leave, people must work core hours per day and they can make up the normal working hours through working earlier or later than the core hours. They may work extended hours over and above the normal daily requirement of hours and, by doing so, they may build up hours spent on duty to provide them with the equivalent of a day or a half day's leave per month. I am not sure whether the Deputy is suggesting that those who attend on a normal basis, as required, should after a particular length of time be allowed uncertified leave and that civil servants should be given leave for attending normally at work.

I am sure the Minister knows the record in regard to uncertified sick leave. It is very annoying for people who do not use up uncertified sick leave to know that others are abusing the system. If I were to put down a question to the Minister regarding the level of uncertified sick leave per individual it would be quite embarrassing. I am suggesting that a positive incentive should be given to people who do not use their uncertified leave.

The insinuation that many or most people in the public service abuse uncertified sick leave is not true. Many officers serve for years without taking uncertified sick leave in any one year. I understand that a study some time ago of comparative sick leave records between the public service and the private sector showed that sick leave records were roughly comparable. That is not to say, of course, that the amount of uncertified absences whether in the public or private sectors is satisfactory but perhaps the matter might better be addressed by examining the uncertified sick leave record of certain personnel rather than extending the concept of giving uncertified sick leave to the personnel who attend at present.