Derek McDowell (Labour)

I am not quite sure I understood the Minister of State. We all are in favour of good and enhanced practice but what does this mean? Is the Minister of State saying it is sufficient that a newsletter or an email is sent out twice a year? That is hardly what the directive intended.

The Minister of State referred to Article 2 of the directive. I thank him for providing me with a copy of the directive yesterday. Article 2 says nothing of any meaning. It just gives enormous scope to member states to define almost everything they want to define, including employer, employee, employees' representatives, etc. It allows us to do what we want and let us not suggest that we are constrained by the directive in how we choose to make it work. In fact, the directive does not make any reference to direct representation or dealing directly with employees. It is quite clear, from reading the directive, that it is intended or expected that member states will provide for a system of representation. That, in essence, is the thrust of this amendment and a number of other amendments in my name.

Consultation is not meaningful unless it is dealt with on a face to face basis. The Minister of State has not answered that point other than to suggest that good practice could lie elsewhere. Employees must sit down in a room within four walls and deal, on a confidential basis if needs be but on a basis of trust, with employees or their representatives. We are saying it should be dealt with on a representative basis and that is the minimum required in order to satisfy the directive. If the Minister of State is stating that it is sufficient to provide a newsletter twice a year, he might put that on the table and say so. I do not accept that such is the case.