Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

I join Deputy Ring in registering my objection to the manner in which the Minister has decided to handle this legislation. Last week, we saw rushed legislation following from the budget. We expected to have an opportunity to debate this Bill, which has been considered in committee, and to take our time in dealing with it and give it adequate consideration. It is not acceptable to circulate amendments at 10.40 p.m., which is when they were e-mailed to Members last night. Most people did not see the amendments until this morning. It was late morning before I had an opportunity to see them. We were given almost 30 pages of amendments. This is disrespectful of Members on this side of the House and of the House's role in legislation. We cannot give consideration to amendments when they are tabled at such a late hour.

Besides, the Minister made a serious error in respect of the procedures to be followed. Amendments seem to have been plucked out of the sky and no notice given to Members. As they are substantial and deal with new matters we are obliged to go through this convoluted procedure in the House, which amounts to a recommittal. An hour is being devoted to that, which must be taken from the short time allowed for Report and Remaining Stages of the Bill. This is a bad way to deal with legislation.

Rushed legislation is usually bad legislation because adequate time is not provided for scrutiny, consultation, taking legal advice, speaking with people who will be affected by the changes or - in this case - discussing the sovereign annuity proposals with the industry. The Minister is not doing his job properly if this is how he deals with legislation. One of his primary responsibilities is to legislate, as it is the primary responsibility of the House. Dealing with legislation in this manner represents a dereliction of the Minister's duty to provide adequate time for due consideration of proposals. For that reason, it is impossible to go along with what the Minister is proposing. Members on this side of the House have not had adequate time to consider the proposals.

Given that the Minister was not in a position to circulate the amendments until late last night, it is clear that he is not sufficiently briefed or au fait with the significant proposals he is making. For that reason, I have serious concerns about the potential for the implications of some of these proposals to be negative and flawed. That is the likelihood, given the rushed manner in which the Minister has dealt with them.

The civil partnership legislation has implications for the social welfare code. Amendments Nos. 3 to 24, inclusive, deal with civil partnership. These 22 amendments deal with legislation that came from another Department entirely. When that legislation went through the Oireachtas, we were promised corresponding and pursuant legislation in the social welfare and tax areas. I do not know why it was left to the last minute to circulate these detailed proposals. I also wonder when we will see the taxation legislation. Will those measures be ready in time for the finance Bill? Why could the full package not have been drawn up at the same time with the other Departments? Why were these amendments not included in the Social Welfare Bill proper last week so that they could be given adequate consideration on Committee Stage? We must take these 22 amendments on trust. I do not think anyone was in a position to look at them in any detail, read them, consider their implications or cross-reference or check them. We are being asked to vote for these amendments blind. We can only keep our fingers crossed and hope the Minister has some clue what he is doing. This is no way to treat Members of the House or for Members to be forced into dealing with legislation.

The proposal on sovereign annuities is potentially very good and something people working in the industry have been seeking. There are two aspects to it. One is the pricing of annuities. Given the current expensive nature of Irish bonds and their high interest rate, the measure provides an opportunity to assist many of the pension funds that are in difficulty at present by switching the pricing mechanism from German bonds to Irish bonds. That makes sense and has been requested for some time. It could have been done sooner and would have conferred a benefit, but I welcome it nonetheless. The other aspect of the proposal is that the NTMA will issue longer-term bonds in respect of retirement annuities. I welcome that. It makes sense.

I must include a caveat. I am not sufficiently au fait with what the Minister is proposing. Due to the rushed nature of the work he has done on the proposal, the Minister has not consulted with people in the industry who have been lobbying for this measure for some time. It makes no sense that the people who made the proposal to him in the first place were not paid the courtesy of being asked to respond to the Minister's proposal. Neither were they allowed to consider it and make further input. The Minister should have availed of that expertise, given the dearth of pensions expertise that has been displayed in Departments for some time and the Government's ill-advised approach to pensions generally. I hope we will have an opportunity to come back to this in the new year. However, I fundamentally disagree with what the Minister is proposing to do in the pensions area, particularly in respect of tax relief. What he is proposing will be extraordinarily damaging to the pensions industry and to the whole pensions area. What the Minister is proposing will completely remove any incentive for people to save for their pensions. Under his proposals, people would be much better off putting their money under the mattress rather than investing it in pension schemes. The proposals to which I refer are ill-informed and will do serious damage. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider them.

I am not sure that the Minister's proposal in respect of sovereign annuities is sufficiently tight to prevent any potential abuse. In the short time available to me earlier this afternoon to consult people who are familiar with this area, a number of concerns were expressed regarding the potential for abuse. For example, will any mechanism be put in place to stop people from investing in Greek bonds? There is a view that the proposal in respect of this matter is not sufficiently robust and could potentially be open to abuse. The proposal is substantial but, because it is being rushed through, there is a real danger that the Minister is going to get it wrong.

The other matter under discussion relates to the status of persons engaged in work experience pursuant to certain placements. Again, this is another area in respect of which there is major confusion. The principle underlying existing work placement schemes is fine. These schemes have a great deal of potential and they provide opportunities for people who have good skills which they want to put to use or those who do not possess such skills but who want to acquire them. The schemes also ensure, at a time of high unemployment, that people can gain work experience.

As already stated, the position with regard to the existing schemes is fine. However, I am of the opinion that it is not possible to put in place a scheme such as that outlined in the legislation on a hurried basis. The Minister is operating on the hoof and the proposals relating to the new scheme appear to have been cobbled together in order that the Government could state, in the context of the budget, that it is taking action in respect of unemployment.

In the specific amendment relating to this matter, the Minister is seeking to deny those who either are or will be on work placements the normal protections to which employees are entitled. Those protections were hard won and were put in place through the enactment of labour laws. I have serious concerns with regard to what is proposed. Under the new scheme, some individuals will be working up to 40 hours per week for their dole payments. These people will not receive anything extra on top of their weekly payment of €188. In addition, they will not enjoy the same protections as those alongside whom they will be working and who will be earning perhaps twice or three times the amount they will receive by means of their dole payments.

The Minister is also denying the people to whom I refer any kind of common law protections. What will be the position, for example, in cases of unfair dismissal? If a person on a work placement is informed that the job they were doing is no longer available or that their performance is unsatisfactory, will he or she have any rights? Will he or she enjoy any protection at all? What will be the position with regard to data protection? From what is proposed, it appears that those to whom I refer will be denied the basic common law or specific employment rights enjoyed by full-time workers.

The existing work placement scheme has not been reviewed and little or no monitoring takes place in respect of it. Whatever about the graduate placement arrangements - in many instances these work well - there are other arrangements in respect of which obvious abuse is taking place. I browsed the relevant website recently and came across a case where a well-known shoe shop in the city was advertising for six assistants. That is complete abuse. It is inappropriate that those on work placement schemes would be obliged to work in shops of this nature as cheap labour. The owners of the shop in question were seeking six people to work a full week on the understanding that it would cost them nothing because these individuals would be working for their dole. I would have thought the Minister would be of the view that this represents an inappropriate use of a work placement scheme. However, it managed to traverse the very low threshold which appears to apply in respect of what is deemed appropriate or inappropriate.

The case to which I refer appears to involve an obvious abuse. The Minister must review the scheme in order to ensure that employers will not use it as a means to procure cheap labour. He must also ensure that displacement does not occur. I recently became aware of a case involving a State agency which was on the point of recruiting a fully-qualified person to fill a job vacancy on full pay when the new work placement scheme was announced last year. As a result, the agency in question postponed the appointment and later recruited two people from the scheme on work placements in order to fill the vacancy. Again, this cost the agency nothing but the two individuals who were recruited were obliged to work for their dole payments. It appears that they were abused in this instance.

Another point to which I wish to refer is the allowance that is to be paid. The Minister cannot expect people to take up work placements and be obliged to pay bus or train fares, buy lunches and clothes for work and so on and then refuse to recognise the costs involved for these individuals. It is interesting that IBEC recently made this very point and stated that its members wanted to pay participants on the work placement scheme an allowance but, under the terms of the scheme, were precluded from doing so. What is happening makes no sense. The Minister should recognise how much it costs for people to go to work.

The Minister for Finance announced on budget day that there will be some 15,000 places available on the various schemes. The Minister opposite referred to one of the schemes whereas the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions)(No. 2) Bill 2010 relates to all of them. The difficulty we face is that the Minister has only informed us about one scheme.

See this speech in context