The failure of financial assistance applicants to submit documents to authorised officials in the department when applying for aid will be criminalised with the passing of legislation in the Senate.

The use of abusive language against staff in the department could also land an applicant a fine or term of imprisonment under the law.

This is despite objections by several senators to section 3 of The Financial Assistance Amendment (No 2) Act 2023, passed in the Senate on Wednesday, which amends section 4 of the principal Financial Assistance Act.

The amendment makes an offence of assault or obstruction of any authorised officer in the performance of their functions, indecent, abusive or insulting language to the officers and failing to comply with any requirement made by an authorised officer.

The legislation makes these actions a summary offence carrying up to six months’ imprisonment or a $1,500 fine.

The Opposition proposed an amendment to the subsection speaking to abusive language, but after going to a vote the motion was defeated.

Senators voted along party lines: Progressive Labour Party senators voted against the change, One Bermuda Alliance senators voted for it. One independent senator was absent, another voted for the change and another voted against it.

Kiernan Bell, an independent senator, said her principal concern was with the subsection regarding failure to comply with requirements, such as providing documentation.

Ms Bell said she believed the amendment gave directors “significant and unintended powers of punishment” over individuals seeking financial assistance.

She said: “The purpose of this section is not to make it a criminal offence to fail to provide that information or to fail to attend an examination or even to refuse entry to your home.

“The purpose of section 4 is to give the power to the director to require this information in fulfilling the director’s statutory function of considering whether or not to award financial assistance to the applicant.

“Today, if an applicant does not provide the information or the documents or attend for an examination or allow entry to their accommodation, the consequence is pretty straight forward — they do not get an award for financial assistance.

“I see no reason for someone to also be subject to prosecution for a statutory offence if they fail to provide information or documents, or show up to an examination, and that is what is contemplated by this amendment.

“This is tantamount to subjecting a person who applies for financial assistance to the risk of criminal prosecution for simply engaging in the process and failing to follow through.”

She said assault was already a criminal offence and questioned the definition of “obstruct”, which is often subject to statutory definition.

“It can mean anything from providing false information to authorities, interfering with an investigation or physically obstructing someone,” she explained.

“In this case, the word has been used in a subsection referring to assault, and this suggests, perhaps, that obstruction in this context is intended to refer to physical obstruction – preventing an officer from entering their home.

“When we, as a legislature, create new criminal offences, it should not be vague. People should not be confused as to whether they have committed a criminal offence.”

Robin Tucker, the Opposition Leader in the Senate, said: “I support much of what is in this Act and can see the need for it.”

However, she added: “If we allow people to be fined or go to prison for emotional outbursts, will the next steps be to impose fines or terms of imprisonment for people who lose their cool with others who work in high-stress environments?

“There should be consequences, no one should have to put up with disrespectful behaviour, but is imprisonment an appropriate consequence? I would say no.”

Lindsay Simmons, a government senator, said: “We can make excuses for everything. We need to protect the workers at all costs”.

The Reverend Emily Gail Dill, a government senator, said that the legislation was necessary and she revealed that one financial assistance applicant had sent photographs of a revolver accompanied by threatening language to a staff member.

Dr Dill said: “The entire department was put in lockdown. I support this legislation and I trust that it will serve as a disincentive to individuals.”

Dwayne Robinson, an OBA senator, said: “The folks on financial assistance are people who deserve more of a rehabilitation approach rather than deterrent.”

He said laws were already in place to tackle physical abuse and that the proposed legislation added “a double layer of criminality”.

Owen Darrell, the Government Senate Leader, said: “I would hate that some of these heartbreaking stories we hear of individuals who are waiting patiently for us to pass these reforms to be held up because of a line or two that some may be taking far out of context.”

Douglas De Couto, an Opposition senator, said the law was tantamount to criminalising someone getting upset. He said: “A lot of people’s lives have been derailed because of a line or two in the law.”

Leslie Robinson, the Junior Minister of Economy and Labour, said: “In the Oxford English dictionary, the term obstruct is defined to mean block. The language is clearly understood as it has been referred to without definition in more than six pieces of legislation.

“There is no evidence that provisions containing such language have been used abusively or unnecessarily against any person.

“As far as it being a statutory offence to fail to produce documents, section 43(b) of Parliament Act 1957 provides for a similar offence. This has been inserted and, as my colleagues have mentioned, because of the propensity, the increase that we are seeing in fraud, it is important — persons are either committing fraud themselves or are part of a scheme of fraud.

“In these circumstances it would still be up to the courts to determine what the outcome would be.

“What is in here is not anything different from what has been and is in other pieces of legislation.”

Ms Bell countered: “I don’t know of any legislation that makes a similar application for government benefit and failing to follow through in order to obtain that benefit.”

Dr De Couto said as the law would allow other people, such as family members of financial assistance applicants, to be prosecuted, his reservations had “deepened” and he would like to see the subsection on abusive language and obstruction and failing to comply with requirements removed.

The Senate passed the legislation, which also raised the cut-off for financial assistance from $500 in the bank to $5,000, in keeping with the island’s rising cost of living.

It also allows recipients to retain earnings not exceeding $5,000, and up to 50 per cent of child support payments, also not exceeding $5,000.

It empowers the financial assistance director to retrieve funds where there was non-disclosure of an erroneous payment, as well as misrepresentation and fraud.

Aggrieved parties can appeal decisions before the Financial Assistance Review Board.