Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This issue will have major consequences for employees. Given that the attachment of earnings order applies to PAYE workers, it will cause difficulties in the general workforce. This has been examined in other jurisdictions - for example, in the US, European countries and in the United Kingdom. The conclusions drawn from those examinations show the potential for an attachment of earnings order to have an effect on the employment prospects of the debtor. According to the examination of this practice in other jurisdictions, where an order is directed at the debtor's employer who is obliged to make the prescribed deductions, it can have an adverse effect on the employee's opportunities for promotion and advancement. It may even have an impact on the debtor's employment prospects, with employers in some cases drawing conclusions that trustworthiness, particularly regarding money matters, may be an issue for that particular employee. They are very serious consequences.

The recent FLAC submission to Members of the Oireachtas indicated that many countries have dealt with the issue through legislative schemes. FLAC recommended that an attachment of earnings order should only follow a debtor's failure to meet the terms of an instalment order - in other words, as a last resort. Varying the instalment order downwards due to a debtor's inability to pay should be examined before any attachment of earnings order is made. Any attachment of earnings order should be capable of being suspended in order to allow the employee to make the payments voluntarily. If a debtor comes into some money, he or she should be able to clear the debt. It is very important for that to be included, but it is not included in the Bill, which is surprising.

Where an attachment of earnings order is made, substantial employment protection measures should be put in place. In this regard, the Law Reform Commission's 2009 consultation paper recommended that the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 1993 should be amended so that dismissal on the grounds of being subject to an attachment of earnings order may be added to the list of unfair reasons for dismissal. In its 2010 report, the Law Reform Commission recommended that legislation should prohibit not only the dismissal of an employee on the grounds that he or she has become subject to one or more attachment of earnings orders, but should also prohibit any other adverse action from being taken against the employee on this sole ground. It also recommended that the employer should be guilty of an offence under this heading.

However, the Bill does not take any of these issues into account. It even allows a District Court judge to make an attachment of earnings order without first requiring the creditor to apply for an instalment order. There is no protection for the debtor against adverse treatment by his or her employer. These are major issues which will affect employees either openly or without an employer having to be so open about it. It may affect promotional opportunities and there may be hearsay within companies. We can imagine that in the public or private sector an attachment of earnings order would become the story of the office and this is very wrong. The order should only be used, as was highlighted by the Law Reform Commission, as an absolute last resort. We are opening a Pandora's box, the effects of which no one can anticipate. The Bill has been brought forward as being based on recommendations from the Law Reform Commission, but the fundamental rights contained in the Law Reform Commission's paper have been excluded from the legislation. The only rights included are for creditors to obtain their dues without even having to present a case. This is wrong and it should be examined. This is a human rights issue as much as anything else, and it is a grave mistake to go down this road without taking on board all of the recommendations contained in the Law Reform Commission's research and examination of this area in other jurisdictions. We do not want to see the same consequences emerge here as have emerged in other jurisdictions.