Seanad debates
Wednesday, 26 May 2004
Adoptive Leave Bill 2004: Committee Stage.
3:00 pm
Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
As Senator McDowell is surprised at my obeisance to social partnership, I am delighted that China and Siberia are off his holiday destination list. It is amazing what has happened since the collapse of Communism.
We are dealing here with a matter of some significance. Section 7 puts a new section 11A into the Act. It allows that "an employee shall be entitled, in accordance with regulations made by the Minister, to take time off from work, without loss of pay, to attend any pre-adoption classes and meetings which the employee is obliged to attend". If this facility is to be extended to trips to places, such as India, and other places where adoptive children are available, it could impose a huge cost on an employer in addition to the cost of adoptive leave. It could be a colossal blow to a small firm if an employee were to go twice to India for pre-adoption meetings and then take 16 weeks adoption leave. That would be an enormous expense to an individual employer. We cannot continue to load such obligations onto employers.
Would-be adopters who travel abroad to adopt children are making a considerable sacrifice on occasion, but it is important that they do so. It is important that they understand the society from which they are bringing a child home to Ireland to adopt. However, it is not fair to say to a small or medium sized employer that he or she must foot the bill, to the extent of paying wages throughout the period, for a three week trip to one of these countries. That is not reasonable. Unpaid leave for potential adoptive parents would be one thing but that is not what is being suggested. A small and medium sized employer, who is under pressure and is dealing with competition from other companies, cannot be expected to give paid leave for two trips, perhaps six weeks in a year, plus another 16 weeks if it comes to an adoption, which is not certain in these cases. That would be a significant penalty for an employer.
The measure I propose is reasonable and fair to both sides in the equation and is supportive of adoptive parents. The suggestion that employers should pay for what could be lengthy periods abroad is not acceptable.
No comments