Feargal Quinn (Independent)

This amendment is an excessive overreaction to what is a relatively inconsequential issue and it should not be considered. It is unlikely that when a forum has been agreed with the employees that an employer would subsequently act at that forum in a way that would adversely affect the well-being of an employee representative. I cannot say it too often. This is not negotiation. We are discussing an information and consultation forum. We are discussing the principle. I do not understand why those who moved the amendment would seek shadows and pitfalls where none exists.

Moreover, the amendment seeks to introduce the role of expert into the proceedings. I can understand Senator McDowell's point about people not understanding figures in the context of negotiations, but when it comes to consultation and information it would be damaging to our ability to compete in the marketplace if we are the only country in Europe that is insisting on outside experts being able to fulfil the employee representative role. It goes against all the rules of common sense to have so-called outside experts brought in for the purpose under discussion.

I began my contribution today by referring to my experience yesterday of reading that advertisement from Austria. We are in competition with other countries that are all going to incorporate the terms of this directive. Let us make sure the directive is not put through in such a manner that it inhibits others who are likely to come here to set up business. We must make sure this is an attractive place to carry on a business while holding on to everything we are doing. What is proposed here follows the directive. The directive can be adopted without being hindered by what is proposed in the amendment.

I am totally opposed to the concept of what is proposed here although I understand the good intention of those who proposed the amendment, Senator O'Toole and Senator McDowell. It reminds me of what happened in France when a 35-hour week was proposed to overcome unemployment problems. The 35-hour week did not work and now there is a far higher unemployment than was the case before. While the intention may be good in many of these things, the end result is just not workable. I am totally opposed to the concept proposed here. The amendment foolishly introduces an adversarial context in an area where information and consultation is concerned. Relations may well be adversarial in the context of negotiations but not in the forum with which we are concerned, where the purpose is information and consultation. The amendment should be rejected.