Derek McDowell (Labour)

A fundamental issue is at stake in this group of amendments. It is clear that there are significant differences between my opinions on the matter and those of my colleagues. The Minister of State said that employees have "a right" to information and consultation. If we all agree that it is a good and fine thing that they have such a right — every Senator who has contributed to this debate seems to thinks so — there is absolutely no need for us to introduce a trigger mechanism to bring that right into force. Why can we not agree to give people that right by obliging enterprises and employers to put in place the necessary mechanisms to make it a reality? I do not understand the argument that to do so would create a capacity for mischief-making. I am making the case for the provision of information and consultation, possibly on the basis of just two meetings per year. Despite the fact that everyone seems to think that is a good thing, certain people seem to find it necessary to try to put in place mechanisms to make it very difficult, or almost impossible in some cases, to facilitate it. If one has the right to information and consultation, why is it mischievous for one to want to invoke that right? If it is a good thing to legislate for that right, why do people think that the providers of foreign direct investment, such as IT companies, will leave this country if they have to conferthat right on their workers, or if they have to work within the framework being set out in the Bill?

I wish to highlight the fundamental contradiction within the approach being adopted in certain quarters. If the right to information and consultation is a good thing, we should make it easy for workers to invoke that right by removing the trigger mechanism. I oppose any suggestion that the minimum requirement within the trigger mechanism be increased to give some sort of comfort to companies involved in foreign direct investment. Those who favour an increase are essentially saying to such companies that although they understand that the EU directive cannot be ignored and that something needs to be done about it, they are trying to make it as meaningless as possible. I fundamentally disagree with the suggestion that we should send such a message to companies involved in foreign direct investment.