Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I recognise that this amendment simply represents an extension of an existing provision, but it also comprises a substantial strengthening of the sanctions. Why was this significant change not included in the original legislation? The Minister will no doubt say it had not been cleared by the Attorney General's office but, if that is the case, why not hold the Bill until such time as significant provisions, including this amendment and the earlier provision regarding attachment orders, were included in the Bill as drafted? That would have afforded us an opportunity to take advice, consult people at the coal face and come in here properly briefed for the Second Stage debate. The Government's legislative programme advertised the fact that change in the priority system for defined benefit pension schemes would be central to this Bill, but there is no provision for same. This amendment, on the other hand, amounts to a very significant change introduced at the last moment and shoehorned for discussion on the graveyard shift, in which nobody is taking the slightest interest. That is probably the intention. I could never work out exactly what the two parties comprising the Government were talking about when they spoke in advance of the election about a constitutional revolution and an entirely new way of doing business. If this is the new way of doing business, if this is the revolution, then people who are worried about constitutional change can certainly rest easy in their beds. This is no revolution. It is, in fact, an appalling way of doing business.

The amendment provides that sanctions will kick in where a person refuses or fails, without just cause, to comply with the requirement to engage with the specified labour activation measures. The Minister made the point that people can appeal a decision in this regard. The reality, however, is that while welfare recipients may believe they have just cause, the harassed and overworked local social welfare officer who is dealing with 50 or 100 cases at once might not feel disposed to examine in very much detail whether or not that is the case. At what point can a person appeal and if an appeal is instituted immediately, will the sanctions be stalled pending the outcome of the appeal? In other words, will an appeal prevent the sanctions from kicking in or will we have a ridiculous situation where sanctions kick in immediately even though the individual believes he or she has very good cause for not complying and is waiting six months for the appeals officer to make a decision on the matter?

See this speech in context