Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Deputy raises an interesting issue. The Unfair Dismissals Act and anti-discrimination legislation are in place. My initial reaction is that these legislative provisions would adequately cover that possibility. I do not believe an employer who would conduct itself in that way would be acting lawfully. I do not think the fact that an attachment order could be made could properly result in anyone's dismissal.

This is an issue which has been settled. As long ago as 1976 attachment orders were introduced under the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act 1976. These were not introduced in a criminal context but rather in the context of family law. At that time when maintenance orders were made for the support of a spouse and children, if a person who was clearly in a position to afford to make payments reneged on making payment, the courts since then have been able to make attachment or earnings orders. That regime of attachment of earnings orders has been extended over the years to support payment orders in judicial separation cases and divorce cases and made under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 for the maintenance of children. This Bill deals with an attachment order instead of a fine but it is a similar order in that it orders that a portion of salary be paid directly. I do not think this is a problem issue but I am very happy to examine it in order to ensure that it is not a difficulty.

The reality is that if a person is brought before the courts and convicted, any fine or sentence imposed is a public matter and may well come to the notice of that individual's employer. I appreciate that if a person is employed subsequent to a conviction, the employer may or not know about it, depending on whether the latter has researched the issue. My view is that there is no legal problem in this regard. I appreciate the concerns the union has expressed and, as I said, we will give further consideration to the matter.

To clarify, because attachment orders have been in operation for decades, any employer which conducted itself in the manner indicated would fall foul of the relevant legislation. As somebody who practised in the family law area for many years, that type of occurrence certainly was not my experience, either in representing spouses against whom attachment of earnings order were made or spouses, primarily wives, who were recipients of maintenance and were obliged to apply for attachment orders. In 30 years of practice, I cannot recall a single case of a person in employment against whom an attachment order was made getting into difficulties with his or her employer. I certainly can recall instances where, because family law was conducted in private, a plea was made to the court not to make an attachment of earnings order, thereby alerting the employer that the employee was not meeting his or her maintenance obligations. In such cases, people were generally not proud of their conduct and did not want their employer to know about it. Indeed, in the family law context, a threat of making an attachment of earnings order often brought about compliance.

Having said that, I am glad to give further consideration to the provision in light of the concerns set out by the Deputy. If any amendment is found to be necessary, I will engage with my officials to bring it forward on Report Stage. Likewise, if the Deputy deems it necessary to table an amendment on Report Stage, we will come back with chapter and verse in the context of the relevant provisions, which, as I understand it, are the Unfair Dismissals Act and the anti-discrimination legislation, together with any other statutory measures that might be of relevance.