Mr. Christopher Bowes:

The only reference up to that point was the comment the Deputy made reference to. The website subsequently contained that reference. There was no reference anywhere prior to that comment being made to such a requirement arising in the context of the Covid-19 PUP. It remained on the website and when a legislative basis for the payment was introduced on 5 August through the 2020 Act, it became an eligibility criterion for the payment. As set out in our submission, in FLAC's view it cannot properly be considered as having been an eligibility criterion for the payment prior to the enactment of the 2020 Act.

In our submission we also highlight a number of concerns relating to it now being an eligibility criterion for the payment in circumstances where the payment is expressly stated to be designed for people who may have been temporarily laid off. We do not understand the logic of attaching that criterion to the payment in circumstances where people may have every expectation of returning to their employment after a period. This is particularly in the context of people having to seek the Covid-19 PUP in future if new rules or restrictions are introduced that might limit their ability to go to work or the ability to trade of the business for which they work. The Covid-19 pandemic unemployment payment must be reactive to such positions and take into account the sort of circumstances in which it could be foreseeable that people may claim that payment.

The criterion as it attaches to the payment should be reviewed. It is also regrettable that there are no regulations yet as to how the eligibility criterion would be assessed. For example, we do not know in what circumstances somebody should be held as genuinely seeking work while in receipt of the payment. It is particularly concerning in circumstances where people may not currently have the same access to childcare or be able to seek work as a result while in receipt of the payment. While off work, they may have other childcare commitments.