David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)

I oppose section 16. When the Minister launched the Pathways to Work scheme, she stated: "I am trying to ensure that people don't find the security of the social welfare system more attractive than the risky world of work." This sits with the Minister's own lexicon when she used the term, "lifestyle choices" recently. This rationale ignores the reality that employers have been forced to reduce people's hours, left, right and centre, as a consequence of the recession. The people who will have their income cut as a result of the provisions in this Bill are not plodding along happily in part-time employment; many of them are in enforced under-employment. Through no fault of their own they have lost part of their job or at least they have lost many of their hours. I do not intend to dwell on this section so I will keep my contribution brief. Does the Minister think it is easy to go out and find a second job or find an employer who will be happy to offer the hours that fit neatly and precisely with an existing job? Jobseeker's benefit is an insurance-based scheme so these cuts, in my view, are an insult to those people who have worked, who have accrued their entitlements, have hit hard times and yet now they are being penalised. I do not regard this as fair and for that reason I oppose the section. I await the Minister's response.