Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)

Government amendment No. 28 is a technical amendment recommended by the Parliamentary Counsel, as is amendment No. 31. This amendment adds clarity to the subsection and provides that the Labour Court shall notify the employer and the employees whether the employment threshold has been met in terms of a request from the employees for the establishment of information and consultation arrangements.

If the Senators' amendments were to be adopted they would fundamentally change some important points in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 27, 29 and 30 seek to increase the minimum employee threshold to 15% and the maximum number of employees to 250. On the other hand, amendment No. 25 proposes removing the employee thresholds from this section of the Bill and proposes other amendments related to the Labour Court. Amendment No. 26 proposes replacing a "nominee" of the court with "a nominated officer".

The directive refers to the right of employees to be informed and consulted about certain matters that affect them. Employees can choose whether to exercise this right. The Bill, as drafted, sets out the minimum and maximum number of employees needed to initiate negotiations to establish information and consultation arrangements. The minimum employee threshold, which is the lesser of 10% or 15 employees, ensures that a minimum level of support from employees must exist before an information and consultation arrangement is introduced. The maximum threshold, which is the greater of 10% or 100 employees, ensures that where a sufficient interest exists, employees in large organisations do not face an overwhelming obstacle in obtaining the requisite number to make a request. A precedent for an employee threshold already exists in section 10(1) of the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Act 1996. The same threshold, 10% of employees, is used in that legislation, without causing problems.

The majority of submissions received on foot of the consultation paper issued in July 2003 favour an opt-in mechanism for the exercise of the right to information consultation under the Bill. These submissions, together with the wider consultation process, helped inform the drafting of the Bill which I believe is a balanced reflection of the needs of Irish employees and businesses in the context of our economy and society.

I would now like to deal with some of the points raised by individual Senators. Senator McDowell and other Opposition Senators do not believe this is a fair framework. Members' contributions illustrate how difficult it is to strike a reasonable balance in finding a way to provide information and consultation. It came down to choosing percentages and numbers and it was convenient for me that there happened to be a formula in this regard in pre-existing legislation. I did not have to invent it and it was even more attractive because it was a formula that has not caused difficulties, one of the reasons I recommend it.

Senators Coghlan, Quinn and White believe the trigger level is too low. I appreciate people on the employer or trade union sides have made a strong case to Senators on both sides of the argument and they must bring those concerns to the House. As Senators are fond of telling each other, but not so fond of admitting, the legislation is about information and consultation and neither a panacea for all our ills nor the end of the world. We must strike a reasonable balance. I believe the balance we have chosen in this regard is reasonable.

I know Senator Coghlan and others believe the upper limit of 100 employees allows for a mischievous minority to set the process in train. In my experience, if 100 employees seek something of this nature, it is unlikely they are a mischievous minority. The requirement of 100 is a fairly large number. It would be no more difficult to get 250 from a certain number than it is to get 100 from another number or no more difficult to get 15% than 10%. The figures of 10% and 100 employees are a reasonable compromise position. They are, after all, only in the context of setting in place the information and consultation process.

Senator Quinn raised the question of who the Labour Court nominee might be with regard to amendment No. 26. I am mindful of the court's wonderful record and the positive contribution it has made to industrial relations here. I do not have a difficulty with what is proposed, but I am happier to allow the Labour Court to come up with its nominee. It is difficult to visualise circumstances where that might not be along the lines outlined in the amendment, but there might be circumstances where somebody familiar with the company who would be acceptable to both sides might as a nominee bring matters to a speedy and effective conclusion more quickly than somebody else.

I have confidence in the Labour Court to discharge its obligations under this legislation in a sensible and constructive fashion. We had a previous amendment I did not accept for this same reason. I am confident the Labour Court is capable of dealing with the issue sensitively. The occasion would be sensitive and would need to be progressed without offending any of the parties involved. The Labour Court is more than capable of doing that.

Senator White mentioned the number of high-tech companies employing over 1,000 people. Those employees are likely to be highly responsible and sensible and it is unlikely they would be the kind of mischievous minority that would seek to do something that would undermine their jobs or damage the company. Our capacity to compete is not adversely affected or diminished by the provision of information and consultation. All the research we have in this area suggests that our ability to compete is enhanced rather than diminished in situations where there is good quality information and consultation. This is the huge plus of this legislation, but we seem to have a mental block with regard to acknowledging it when it comes to the detail of the Bill. I urge Members to acknowledge that we have mulled over the issue for a long time, considered all the angles and come up with what we believe is sensible, workable and fair from the perspective of both employer and employee.