Read on Twitter
This looks weird. The circumstances the Other Taoiseach describes here aren’t the circumstances of people going on their holidays which the papers have reported is prompting cutting of welfare payments.
Some options occur: https://twitter.com/rtetwip/status/1287345081016635394
Some options occur: https://twitter.com/rtetwip/status/1287345081016635394
Option 1: This report conflates two different groups incorrectly. Report headline refers to “holiday makers” but maybe the actual interventions relate to people who are not ordinarily resident in the country.
https://twitter.com/qualann/status/1287344029705949184?s=21 https://twitter.com/qualann/status/1287344029705949184
https://twitter.com/qualann/status/1287344029705949184?s=21 https://twitter.com/qualann/status/1287344029705949184
T assess that, we’d require clarification of what “rules” are cited that 104 people might have been deemed to be in breach of.
The Other Taoiseach doesn’t cite any claim akin to that made in the last paragraph of the report, that the rules of pandemic payments forbid travel.
The Other Taoiseach doesn’t cite any claim akin to that made in the last paragraph of the report, that the rules of pandemic payments forbid travel.
Ah, thanks to @Maebhcon we have more and better data. This is a Ministerial order dated the 10th July.
https://twitter.com/maebhcon/status/1287401800396677121?s=21 https://twitter.com/Maebhcon/status/1287401800396677121
Now I am as interested as anyone in the suppression of Covid infection, but this seems to offer some significant questions of equity and interference in people’s private decision making.
Remember, the Covid advice, is just advice, not law. But here it creates a penalty.
Remember, the Covid advice, is just advice, not law. But here it creates a penalty.
The Travel advisory is now to be enforced by police and state officers at the price of a loss of household income, but only against Social Welfare recipients.
And, under justification of a the secondary legislation used by the Minister to issue an SI, there appears to be an extraordinary expansion of the usually targeted data sharing system intended to address fraud, into a mass surveillance model.
Here’s the regulation the SI seeks to amend.
Note that previously it was permissible to travel for a two week holiday a year, but now that holiday is only permissible if it in line with a voluntary advice document.
Note that previously it was permissible to travel for a two week holiday a year, but now that holiday is only permissible if it in line with a voluntary advice document.
The Explanatory Note cites an extract from a text to explain that all holidays other than to N. Ireland are impermissible- “at the time of signing”.
Here’s that text:
However that same document cited by the SI is also clear that the advice allows for the supremacy of individual judgement
“The purpose of the Department’s Travel Advice is to provide information to the general public so that individuals can make informed decisions for themselves”
“The purpose of the Department’s Travel Advice is to provide information to the general public so that individuals can make informed decisions for themselves”
It’s hard to see what the legal basis is for stopping a person’s income when the cited text explicitly allows for that person to decide to travel.
And therefore what the legal basis would be for the data processing for that enforcement machinery would be.
And therefore what the legal basis would be for the data processing for that enforcement machinery would be.
Generally, this is why we don’t try to make legislation by reference to things that aren’t legislation.
And, for some reason, I’m reminded of this tweet from the 28th June.
https://twitter.com/tupp_ed/status/1277320113256050690?s=21 https://twitter.com/tupp_ed/status/1277320113256050690
https://twitter.com/tupp_ed/status/1277320113256050690?s=21 https://twitter.com/tupp_ed/status/1277320113256050690
