Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This week has been about smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand by the Government. For the second time this week, the Government is engaging in a desperate attempt to ram through a piece of legislation, crudely trying to ensure all the t's are crossed and the i's dotted on all the outstanding issues relating to the water charge debacle. This rush to legislate before the summer recess is no way to govern. As my colleague, Deputy Stanley, has said, we oppose the Bill as strongly as we oppose Irish Water. The legislation contains many flaws which have not been considered, and this has wider implications for society that those on the Government benches, particularly those in the Labour Party, do seem not to appreciate or, perhaps, are turning a blind eye to.

The use of attachment orders or deductions from social welfare payments opens up a new can of worms, not least for those in receipt of social welfare or in work, but also for businesses. Attachment orders on earnings are not conducive to good employer-employee relationships. While the Government claims we are coming out of austerity, small businesses have been subject to the tremendous stresses and incredible difficulties trying to survive one of the worst recessions the State has ever experienced. Employers are struggling to keep businesses going and continue to give employment to a loyal and dedicated workforce. In these circumstances, the normal delicate balance of the employer-employee relationship has already been strained. Throughout the recession, people have worked harder than ever before - for longer hours and less reward, and on lower incomes - to try to keep businesses going, often in impossible circumstances, and to keep their jobs. It does not take a great leap of imagination to realise that an attachment order on earnings imposed by a court which an employer is obliged to enforce against a long-standing and loyal employee will put a major additional stress on this crucial and delicate relationship.

Attachment orders to earnings will probably cause resentment. It is only human that such resentments and bad feelings will arise between the employee and employer. Employers have better things to do than to chase down debts on behalf of others. In this fragile economy, with the burdens faced by small businesses that are trying to survive - existing levels of bureaucracy, fighting market forces and trying not to lose their customer bases - a breakdown in the employee-employer relationship will have a knock-on effect on the stability of many small businesses. It will, potentially, make the workplace a very awkward and difficult environment for all concerned. It might ultimately result in the loss of employees' jobs. If the relationship between the employee-debtor and the employer-enforcer has broken down irrevocably in the case of an attachment on earnings, the continued employment of the employee-debtor may be untenable.

How does putting this type of burden on the employer help the economy? How does it help business? As with nearly everything else this Government has done, it will impact on those who are already in precarious employment, on low pay or in zero-hour contracts. The majority of workers on low pay and zero-hour contracts are women. It is no surprise the Government is implementing legislation that will impact disproportionately on women. It has a track record in this regard, as was writ large this week in its despicable decision to cut the lone parent payment.

I will return to the issue of surviving on a social welfare payment but do I need to spell out to the Government how hard it is to find employment in this economy? It is particularly difficult for young people looking for their first employment or older workers who were made redundant through no fault of their own after the firm in which they worked for most of their lives closed without notice. It would be understandable if such individuals fell into debt. The debts do not need to be large because the legislation has a minimum threshold of €500 for court orders for attachment of earnings or deductions from social welfare payments. Take the case of an unemployed young person with limited work experience who in the normal run of things will already struggle to find secure employment. How much harder will it be for that person to get a job if the first question in the interview is whether he or she has a court order that may require attachment of earnings to clear a civil debt? I imagine such a question would dampen the young person's enthusiasm and blunt his or her willingness to learn. The question may render meaningless his or her qualifications or admirable references because of the simple fact that he or she built up a modest debt. As it is difficult to repay even modest debts when one is unemployed, an order may have been made to deduct the repayments from his or her welfare payments. What chance will individuals have of securing their first job with attachment orders hanging over their heads? An older person who becomes unemployed already faces certain obstacles in finding a new job. Sadly, age in itself becomes an obstacle in some cases. Employers may consider those who are highly qualified as overly skilled for the position, while others worked for 20 or 30 years in a trade or job for which there is no longer a demand. The longer they stay unemployed, the older they get and the less relevant their qualifications become. It is not difficult to imagine such citizens falling into debt. As deduction orders made from their social welfare would translate into attachment of earnings orders, if they are lucky enough to get a job, how realistic are their chances of finding gainful employment? Would employers want the hassle of dealing with that scenario? I do not think the Government has given serious thought to the way in which these orders could impede future employment prospects.

These measures, which are being introduced in order that Irish Water can get its money irrespective of the cost, could have a severe impact on jobseekers. Is there no end to the Government's shameless disregard for the vulnerable? I have asked that question repeatedly. We have had a litany of appalling measures and cuts from a Government of which, shamefully, the Labour Party is a member. In the real world, these measures target those who can barely keep their heads above the water and who struggle daily to stretch their meagre incomes. The choice for families often comes down to paying a utility bill or putting food on the table for the children. This is not some dramatic invention on my part. It is a reality for thousands of carers, lone parent families, those in mortgage distress, the unemployed and those whose only source of income is a welfare payment. The people who struggle to survive on a daily or even an hourly basis are the most vulnerable to falling into debt because they are the least likely to have the parachute of a savings account or a few euro to put away for a rainy day. It does not take much for hundreds of thousands of people across the State to fall into debt. It could happen because of Christmas, back to school time, a broken washing machine or an electricity bill. The cycle of constant indebtedness is a real possibility when, in paying off one debt, a person falls into another. It is entirely possible that lone parents could face multiple orders for deductions from social welfare. I am struck by the contrast between the treatment of such individuals and the debt relief given to the toxic banks and golden circles whose financial recklessness caused the recession and the austerity which weighs so heavily on the most vulnerable. It is the vulnerable who are most likely to fall into debt and, thus, are captured by the measures in this Bill. The Government may be tired of hearing that message but it is the truth.

How are vulnerable people going to be represented in the courts? Will they be dependent on the free legal aid system which is already contending with a huge backlog in cases? The legislation does not provide for a proper appeals process or alternative remedies to the court. Far from being measured and considered, the Bill's provisions are weighted against the poor and vulnerable. This Bill impacts on women, the unemployed and the vulnerable. It is a fitting epitaph for this Government and its deep contempt for those who struggle.

The real purpose of this Bill is no secret. It is making sure Irish water gets its 30 pieces of silver. Last year the Taoiseach brazenly and unambiguously stated that Irish Water will be fully transparent and accountable to the Dáil and a national flagship of high quality and integrity. He promised that Oireachtas committees and Deputies on all sides and none would have the opportunity to hold Irish Water to account. How has that worked out? The Taoiseach's unambiguous statement now lies in the dustbin of broken promises, alongside his much vaunted democratic revolution. The events of this week and the devious way in which the Government introduced these last remnants of the legislation for Irish Water fly in the face of everything the Taoiseach promised.

2 o’clock

Today is just another chapter in the calamity that is water charges and Irish Water. The story of Irish Water is one of indecision, incompetence and arrogance. From the moment it was proposed and set up to these final Bills, it has been a case study in incompetence: outrageous start-up costs; appalling consultancy fees; bewilderment in government all the way up to the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste as the Government tried to figure out what people would be charged for the privilege of having water; and the fiasco of squandering vast public moneys on installing meters that are not used while lead pipes are left criss-crossing the land, with all of the health implications that this entails.

The manner of legislation's introduction in the Dáil has been nothing short of contemptible, so why should today's farce be any different? It is in keeping with the contempt that the Government has for procedures, established practice, the democratic process and the tens of thousands of people who marched on the streets of Dublin and elsewhere in large, State-wide demonstrations and in local demonstrations and who have told the Government that this austerity tax is as popular as an oil spill along the Atlantic coast. It might prove just as dangerous.

Why should the Government care for the inequity that this Bill underpins? Why should it care that it is always those at the bottom who take the hit for the elites and the golden circles? Why should it care about the hardships that families will face under these new austerity taxes? Why should it be in the least bit embarrassed about acting like a thief in the night and picking the pockets of the poor? That is what it is doing. This Bill is just the latest phase.

The Minister lauded the Bill as a mechanism to spare people from imprisonment due to debt. That is her cover story, but we see through it. She is fooling no one. This Bill is only about water charges and Irish Water. While the Minister suggests that the Government is sparing people from imprisonment, the Bill actually facilitates their imprisonment in ongoing debt.

It might interest the Minister and Minister of State to know that I have spoken to people. How people react to measures such as this Bill is interesting. No one supports the idea of imprisonment for the non-payment of fines. Clearly, it is costly, inequitable and unjust. No matter how loudly the Government bangs that drum and offers up that cover story, though, it will not convince me or many others that this Bill is anything other than the latest armament for the State and Irish Water to force the issue of water charges with the population. The Government failed to win people over or win the argument politically and financially, so it is now using these laws to put upon people and ensure that they have no real choice. If they do not pay, the Government will confiscate from them.

The Minister stated that this was straightforward legislation and cited analysis and recommendations from the Law Reform Commission, LRC, which she is hiding behind. The Bill provides enhancements for the suppliers of goods and services to recover modest debts and will be open for use by utilities such as energy and telecom providers and Irish Water. This is not good news for anyone listening to our debate. The Minister stated that the Bill: "will also be available for use by small businesses and traders around Ireland. It will not be directed at those who cannot pay but rather at those who can pay but choose not to." This point cuts to the quick of the issue. In the view of Fine Gael and, sadly, the Labour Party, people on fixed social welfare incomes or pensions are well able to pay for something as basic as domestic water. The two parties continue insisting on this despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That evidence is not just available to the Government by way of statistical analyses, indices of poverty, want and at risk of poverty and so on that weigh down the shelves of libraries everywhere. The evidence is more directly available to the Government, if it cares to view it, in communities across the State. People living on such incomes tell of how they cannot afford another bill, deduction or attachment order, as they are struggling even now to make ends meet. The Government is tired-----

See this speech in context