Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Burton, to the House.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1, in the name of Senator Cullinane, has been ruled out of order.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 2 has been ruled out of order as well as it involves a potential charge to the Exchequer.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to speak briefly to this section. I know the amendments were ruled out of order. I will outline, in the context of this section, the broad thrust of the reasons we tabled these amendments. One of the issues relates to what happens when a person who has been dismissed by an employer takes a case to the appropriate employment rights body, under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007, and that body finds against the employer and rules the person was unfairly dismissed. We are seeking to make provision for the State to be reimbursed in such circumstances for the cost of the social welfare payments of the former employee who was unfairly dismissed.

It is obvious that a person who has been dismissed unfairly and is no longer receiving wages from his or her former employer, will have to seek social welfare payments and wait for the social welfare officer to make a subjective decision on the claim. It is reasonable in such circumstances to expect the employer who dismissed the person unfairly to reimburse the State for the cost of providing social welfare payments to the former employee. Why should the State have to pay social welfare payments in respect of a person who was unfairly dismissed from his or her place of employment? That was the broad thrust of amendment No. 1, which has been ruled out of order. The Minister might be able to deal with the issue under the section itself.

Amendment No. 2 has also been ruled out of order. As the Minister took part in long discussions in the Dáil and the Seanad on the impact of the abolition of the transition pension, I will not labour the argument in favour of this amendment. She is aware of our views on the increase in the pension age. We have had robust and good exchanges on that issue. We do not feel that people who reach the age of 65, and have to receive jobseeker's allowance until they reach the pension age, should be treated the same as people who receive jobseeker's allowance because they are seeking work. It is unreasonable to expect such people to have to satisfy the criterion of being genuinely in search of employment. Perhaps provision could be made to exclude people in such circumstances from having to provide evidence that they are genuinely seeking work. We are making that case in light of the nature of the payment in question and the reason these people are getting it.

The Minister might be able to address those points.