I will just ask a general question. The section is intended to deal with the situation of a maintenance debtor in terms of his employment. Is this concerned with the machinery set up not being tight enough? The main purpose of the section seems to be to place the onus on the maintenance debtor of notifying the court of any change. There is a strong presumption that he might not notify the court.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
Section 19 deals with that.
I presume the onus is placed on the debtor because he is the person who best knows. Is that the principle being applied?
You come face to face here with that scoundrel, the absconding maintenance debtor.
Yes, indeed. You assume they would say nothing about it.
Am I right in thinking it is really placing the onus on the debtor on the basis that he is the person who best knows?
Yes.
Because he is the person who changes employment.
The obligations are on both the debtor and the employer. It could not be done otherwise.
The obligation is on the employer only when it is known to him.
It could not be otherwise.
It seems to me that section 13 (a) deals with the new employer. There is nothing about the old employer notifying the court that the maintenance debtor is leaving his employment.
I think in fact he has to notify because he was the person who had the payment of the order. The court will also want to know whether the payment is in order and the court will also have the account number.
It seems to me section 13 (a) is very important.
I think, in fact, the debtor has to notify the employer that he is a person who had to meet an attachment order.
Yes, but there you are putting a certain onus on a new employer. Would it not be advisable to make an employer who has a maintenance debtor who leaves his employment immediately notify the court that he has gone and where he has gone?
Of course, in practice he would immediately have to notify the court otherwise he would be open to a penalty. Self-interest of the highest kind would ensure that he would give the court immediate and accurate information to save himself. The effect the Deputy seeks is provided by the practicalities of the situation. It is only when the new employer has knowledge of an order being in force that an obligation attaches to him. Of course, the former employer in order to secure his own position may tell the court where the debtor has gone.
There is nothing in the section that compels him to do that.
There is not, no, but I do not know could you put such into it. You have to assume a certain reasonableness, that certain likely things would happen. I do not know that you could put an obligation on an employer to say where his employee has gone. He may not know and he could not be forced to disclose it.
In this connection we are getting to something absolutely crucial. The question of the absconding maintenance debtor is the real social evil in this whole area, and I would certainly be happier if some provision compelling the employer immediately to notify the court that the maintenance debtor left and to give any information in his possession as to where he has gone. Perhaps it is worth consideration.
Yes. As the Deputy says, the real evil is the husband who goes to ground.
Changes jobs.
Any mechanism we could devise that would prevent him from hiding himself would be desirable. I cannot offhand see any objection to what the Deputy suggests.
Think about it.
Yes. We can think about it before the Report Stage. The concrete view might be that in imposing such an obligation you could have the difficult situation of the debtor leaving a job and the employer having a half idea of where he might have gone but not knowing altogether where he might have gone, and the difficulty would be how far one could go in obliging him to disclose knowledge that he himself was not sure of.
Such information as he has.
There again such information as he has might put him in a difficulty. However, these are things that can be thought over.
If he absconds the employer simply cannot know where he has gone. He will make sure his employer does not know.
Employers very often would be in communication with each other.
The trouble is that the husband who wants to go can go.
Mr. O'Brien
I think the important thing is that we try to make it as hard as possible for these people.
And cessation of employment, say, as a result of illness or accident would that have to be considered in the same context. A man could be employed by an employer and have an accident and then his employment may cease or may not cease depending upon the terms of the employment. That would have to be considered in the same context.
Yes.
It is only fair to the employer that he knows where he stands.
Just where is the situation covered in regard to the force of the maintenance order ceasing when a person leaves the employment?
Section 17 deals with where the order is discharged and the order terminated. Section 10 deals with compliance.
". . . subsequently ceases to be in his employment, that person . . ."
Yes. Perhaps we could deal with the point the Deputy is making. It does not put an obligation to give such information, but it does of the fact that there is a cessor. It might be extended to provide an obligation.
Subsection (c) would seem to me to place an impossible onus on an employer in requiring him to know whether or not an employee was a maintenance debtor. I would like to know what the Minister has in mind and what he means by "knowledge" in that case.
Paragraph (c) provides that an employer shall notify the court that a maintenance debtor has come into his employment provided he knows that there is a maintenance order in force.
How is he to know?
If he does not know there is no obligation. There is no obligation on him to do anything unless he knows. He must have positive knowledge. He cannot be guilty of a dereliction under that subsection unless he has knowledge.
The only way he would have positive knowledge would be from the debtor himself.
From the debtor, or possibly from the court, or from the wife, or from the former employer.
Or from the documentation.
Mr. Collins
Could it be tied up through the Department of Social Welfare where insurance would be involved? The Department would know where the person was working.
At some stage this might be done. Some mechanism will have to be found that will deal with people changing jobs. But more important is people changing countries. It will probably devolve on the Department of Social Welfare to devise something on the employee's card to show that he is subject to a maintenance order. This would be treated as going through an employer and then he would be deemed to have knowledge. But that would be a matter for Social Welfare.
Is there any way you could amend this particular paragraph (c) because, if the employer does not know, then it is no use?
If his employer does not know and the wife does not know and nobody else knows where he has gone to ground, that is one of the dangers.
Mr. Collins
Could you strengthen it at this stage through the Department of Social Welfare so that, if he does go and look for a job, he is given his insurance cards and there would be some way of marking the cards?
I do not think this would be the appropriate Bill in which to involve the Department of Social Welfare in, so to speak, marking the cards. I would certainly prefer Social Welfare to deal with that.
Mr. Collins
Perhaps the Minister might have a look at it to see if he can strengthen it in any way.
Yes, certainly I will have a quick word with Social Welfare about it. I doubt if they would be in a position to agree at such short notice to having such a provision put in it, but I certainly will bear that in mind.
Something in the nature of a charge, caution or prohibition?
This is what I think might be unfair to a person who is going through——
He can always be discharged of course.
It would depend on what form of records you would devise. These are the mechanics for Social Welfare to consider.
What about the Revenue Commissioners?
This is a piece of humanitarian legislation.
(Interruptions.)
I never found the Revenue Commissioners anything but humane.
The Minister is lucky in his dealings with them.
For clients only.
Question put and agreed to.