Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Minister understands the point made by Senator Quinn and agrees with him that we should do nothing that would put at risk the employment of people in this country. However, the question that arises is whether this provision does that. In other words, does the deduction of a fine from an employee's earnings over 12 months put employment at risk by raising the costs of the employer and making the business unviable and would the possibility of having to attach an enforcement order put an employer off employing people?

It must be remembered that employers are routinely required to collect moneys on behalf of the State. Under family law, attachment orders, which are a common feature in circumstances where separation has occurred, have been a feature of the law for almost 40 years. Most recently, as referred to by Senator Barrett, employers were required to commence deduction of the local property tax from employees' wages. There is nothing novel about this proposition. However, I accept Senator Quinn's point that it is an additional requirement. Much depends on the size of the business and the number of people in administration working through these issues.

As regards whether this provision would put employment at risk or dissuade an employer from taking on staff, having considered the matter carefully the Minister is satisfied that this measure has no consequences for business or employment. Senator Quinn's amendment bears this out. The average fine set out by the courts is approximately €300. Half of all fines are of less than €200. If Senator Quinn's amendment were accepted, on average, employers would be able to deduct €15 from the fine to compensate them for administering the attachment process. The Minister does not accept that €15 is material in this case. Furthermore, given that for the majority of employers attachment orders will be a rarity, it is unlikely that the possibility of making an order such as this would have any influence on their decision to employ people.

While the Senator's amendment would make little material difference to employers it would be a significant departure in the basic law. It would create an expectation that where the State requires deductions to be made and paid over to it, either by employers or others, they should be compensated for doing this. That is not something that could be embarked upon lightly. It is for this reason, and the fact that the amendment would in the view of the Minister be of no material benefit to employers, that I am unable to accept it. However, I understand the argument made by Senator Quinn.

This largely boils down to the size of the business with which one is dealing. Larger businesses with larger numbers of staff involved in their central administration who have set up these systems could probably deal adequately with it. The issue may be more difficult for smaller businesses. However, the problem that arises is that in imposing this, the knock-on effect for other areas within our basic law could be a difficulty. This issue requires to be teased out more widely than in the context of this Bill.