Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)

I support the amendment. I share the views already expressed by the previous three speakers. This seems to be a very heavy-handed approach to redeeming arrears. I presume those people who would be in arrears are, perhaps, a vulnerable group. Otherwise, they would have found the way and means to repay the arrears before this heavy-handed instrument would have to come in.

I see this provision as a dangerous precedent. Those who have spoken referred to attachment of earnings. It is the latter to which this provision, although it may be couched in slightly different language, relates. There is no protection built into the legislation to protect individual farmers from somebody coming and clawing back what could be their entire single farm payment or, as has been pointed out, any other payment. The precedent proposed here is dangerous. There are no safeguards built into it and there is no safety net for the farmer. The provision could mean that a family would be deprived of its household income. A family's full income could be taken from it if this legislation, as proposed, is allowed to stand. I support the amendment.

See this speech in context