Derek McDowell (Labour)

With respect to my colleague, Senator O'Toole, the amendment is more far-reaching that he has outlined. My difficulty with the direct involvement scheme, as set out in the Bill, is largely based on the failure to define it, although I also have difficulty with the attempt to do two things at the same time. The Bill provides that the provision of information requirement can be satisfied in two separate ways, either by direct involvement, in other words, through direct communication with the employees concerned, or by dealing with their representatives through a forum or similar body. This, to describe it at its mildest, is an unnecessary complication. If the requirements of the directive are to be satisfied successfully, trust is to be built and highly sensitive information imparted to employees to enable them, through changes in work practices and so forth, to try to prevent risk to employment, the process must involve face-to-face meetings in a forum with representatives of employees. In addition, the forum should meet much more frequently than twice a year, the minimum provided for in the standard rules. This, however, is another issue to be discussed later. The requirements cannot be satisfied simply by sending an e-mail twice a year, a practice which, on the face of it, would be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of direct involvement. If information is provided by e-mail, newsletter or other printed material, it cannot be important or sensitive. As such, this option would hardly satisfy the requirements of the directive. To build on trust employers must, at a minimum, meet employee representatives face to face. In essence, the amendments seek to undermine, if not eliminate, the direct involvement system. While I do not have a problem with people receiving information directly from employers, this practice should not be deemed sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the directive.