"Opposition will not let anyone ride roughshod over workers` interests"

Opposition social policy spokesman Marie-Louise Coleiro said yesterday that the Employment and Relations Bill was belated and the challenges which Malta faced in the labour sector was a reflection of the government`s inaction over the past years.

Speaking at the opening of the debate on the bill, Ms Coleiro said it was long known that the Conditions of Employment Regulations Act and the Industrial Relations Act were outdated, yet it was only now that the government was moving new legislation.

Social Policy Minister Lawrence Gonzi in his introduction of the debate had referred to a Joint Assessment Paper on Malta`s labour sector needs, drawn up by EU and Maltese experts. The paper had pointed out the need for Malta to raise its employment rate and for workers` training and education levels to be improved. This, Ms Coleiro said, was a damning statement on the government. What had it been doing for the past 12 years or so? Not only had Malta fallen back in areas such as training in information technology, and only 52 per cent of students were studying beyond secondary level, but as many as 20 per cent of seven-year-olds in the inner harbour area were illiterate.

The vocational college was only opened last October after years of government promises.

Clearly the government acted only when it was pushed to do so, as was the case this time because Malta needed to align its laws with EU regulations.

Ms Coleiro said she could not understand the so-called mistake made in the bill where it involved sympathy strikes. With this bill having been in the making for years, how could such mistakes have been made?

This so-called mistake recalled another famous "mistake" made 33 years ago in the drafting of legislation by then Labour sector minister Censu Tabone, when union leaders were faced with prison terms in an industrial relations bill.

The opposition`s position in this debate, Ms Coleiro said, was that it would not let anyone ride roughshod over the interests of the workers. It would do its best to get the government to accept amendments. If these were not accepted, the next Labour government would amend the law itself.

It was the opposition`s sacred right to tell Maltese workers what certain contentious parts of the bill really meant. At stake were some of the most fundamental rights of workers, such as freedom of association and protection against discrimination on grounds of sex.

Turning to the main points of the bill, she asked why the government had brought two important laws together into one.

She observed that maternity leave with full pay was being increased by just one week to 14.

The definition of a family was being slightly improved, but it still did not reflect the realities of today. The bill seemed to have forgotten single parents and their offspring. On the other hand, it included adoptive parents, who already enjoyed natural parents` rights anyway. And what about foster parents?

The definition of a collective agreement did not even mention trade unions or workers` representatives.

The bill was right to include measures against discrimination on grounds of sex. But why was discrimination on grounds of disability not included, even though it was mentioned in a later part of the bill?

The bill should also include provisions against discrimination on the basis of sexual tendencies.

The functions of the Labour Board were now being shouldered by the Employment Relations Board, along with the functions of a number of other bodies, such as the wages councils. That was not wrong in itself, but there was a threat to democracy because there was blatant discrimination in the composition of the board with regard to workers` representatives.

The debate was suspended at 9 p.m. with Ms Coleiro in possession. The debate continues on Monday.