Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I am minded to refuse the amendment. Whatever merit such a scheme would have and subject to whatever controls would have to be put in place, there is no reason in the world to suggest an employer should bear this cost. It is one thing for the Labour Party or Senator Terry to suggest the Exchequer should fund exploratory visits abroad with a view to adoption. However, it is difficult to tell small and medium sized business employers that they must bear the cost of paying the wages of such a person and his or her replacement because legislators who were not party to the agreement on which this Bill is based believe it would be a nice thing to happen from the point of view of would-be adopters. The amendment suggests that rather than put our hands in our pockets collectively, the employer should bear the cost involved.

Senator McDowell is correct in that at present there is no suggestion that people tell their employer they are off to a far and distant land with a view to adoption to disguise they are going on holiday. However, if one had a system whereby the employer was obliged to pay for such investigative time off, he or she would then be legitimately entitled to seek proof of the process and to ask, based on the fact that he or she is obliged to pay for such time off and for the employee's substitute, how long it will take the person to familiarise himself or herself with India and so on. I do not believe that is a reasonable course of action to propose.