Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

I welcome the chance to speak on Second Stage of the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Bill 2005, and commend the Minister both on bringing it forward and on the manner in which he has done so. I know it is late, and that it is easy for the Opposition once again to portray Ireland as terrible. We are one of the last two countries in the European Union to bring this directive into effect. That is not a mortal sin in this case compared to some of the other delays that occurred but it is important in terms of one aspect, not because of the European regulations but for our own management of businesses here. I refer to companies that may have been looking to introduce something like this or perhaps our unions or workers looking for it. The inability to proceed in that regard because of the absence of legislation is something we regret. It is unfortunate we were not the first out of the traps, not because it concerns European regulations but because it is the right way to proceed.

My sense of why it is the right way to proceed was confirmed recently in an article in a science magazine which concerned getting an estimate on something that is difficult to judge or assess. Science is increasingly showing that if a large group of people, even those who may not necessarily have an expertise in a particular subject, were asked to give the weight of an object, for example, or to respond on something about which they might not have specific knowledge, there is an interesting scientific phenomenon that if the responses are aggregated, by some strange law that scientists do not yet understand, that process uncannily leads to a close to correct assessment of what the weight is or whatever factor is being sought.

There is something such as collective consciousness which we are wise to listen and adhere to, and I believe that works in companies to the company's benefit. If companies are informing their workforce they are opening up the nature of the business and the discussions within the business as wide as possible to hear views from the postal worker or office post boy, a position I held myself at one time in a business, to the chief executive. Widespread access to knowledge information in terms of what the business is doing is an empowering action for business. As a former employer I embrace this legislation because it will be progressive and good for Irish business.

To expand on the example, we operate here in a Chamber of 166 Members and we know that on the occasions when we work well, and it does not often work here, and when there is proper debate with people listening to each other, it benefits the work we do when we critically analyse, comment and suggest to each other how things should work. We know, therefore, that this access to information is the right way to go.

I have a concern in that regard that the Government, in the implementation of the directive, is not going far enough and embracing the legislation in that sense. While I commend the Minister on the consultation process he outlined in his contribution, the manner of the debate in the Seanad and the amendments that arose from that debate, I have a slight concern about much of the legislation we are bringing through the House, which relates to the partnership process. While we may be engaging in a process where there is open consultation, the real decision making will be done, as the Minister of State appeared to imply in his speech, in a series of bilateral meetings that will occur with two of the main players in the process, ICTU and IBEC. While I have nothing but admiration for both those organisations and the people working in them, drafting legislation on the basis of a negotiating deal between IBEC and ICTU is not the right way to proceed. I am not sure it leads to the best legislation or process. In other legislation an incredibly cautious approach was taken because one side or the other did not want the current system changed or any radical change. I was not party to the negotiations but I fear that may have been the case here because the cautious, narrow way in which the Minister of State is implementing the directive is probably due to a cautious narrow approach on the part of those two agencies, particularly IBEC in this case, whose whole purpose is often maintenance of the status quo. That is probably what their members were happy with but it is not necessarily looking to the future in terms of developments and new businesses. That is a concern of mine.

A particular concern I have about the Bill is the inability of an employee to have a right to engage in this process in terms of open consultation and access to information. The provision whereby 10% of employees collectively must request to enter such a process is a mistake. I would prefer employees to have the right to opt in to start this process. If the Minister were to heed what those of us on this side of the House are saying about the benefit of collective discussion and open access to information, he would strengthen the provisions in this case and allow for greater access. That is a better interpretation of the directive and one that would benefit Irish employees.

I disagree with Deputy Morgan who spoke earlier about the need for the separation of labour and enterprise. Good enterprise favours proper labour policy and proper labour policy benefits proper enterprise policy. I do not see it as a case of converging interests and needs. They are in some cases but a strengthening of the Bill in that regard would be to the benefit of all sides.

I have been unable to check this in the European directive but will the Minister of State confirm, perhaps at the end of the Second Stage debate, whether we could set a threshold of fewer than 50 employees of a company? What we define in this country as a small company is often very different to what it would be in Germany, France, America and other very large jurisdictions. As a former employer with less than ten full-time employees, I did not consider that a small company. Once we got beyond one or two employees I felt we were developing into a reasonably sized business. There may be a case, and I am interested to hear the Minister's answer, to apply it to employees in this country because a company with over 25 employees is a reasonably sized company. Why should we not look to offer the same benefits and opportunities to companies of that size as we would to a company with 50 or more employees?

I regret the cautious approach in terms of implementing the Bill. There appears to be a staggered approach in terms of the provisions for companies with up to 150 employees which will come into effect immediately. The provisions for companies with fewer than 100 employees will come into effect later and it will be as late as March 2008 for companies with 50 to 100 employees. I do not understand the reason for the slow implementation of this process. I would prefer to see it apply to companies of different sizes.

I support the nature and content of the Bill but the Minister should consider being more ambitious. I imagine he will hear from Members on all sides of this House that this is not a measure we should be concerned or cautious about. It will be a positive development for Irish businesses and in implementing it, I ask the Minister of State to go further than he did in his contribution and provide for some of the changes I have outlined for the good of Irish employees but also for the good of Irish business.

See this speech in context