Restructuring the MCESD

The Malta Council for Economic and Social Development is not a decision-making body. According to law, it is an advisory or consultative forum to the government. Its final position on economic and social matters is expressed after and if consensus is reached by all parties within the council. Effectively, in the absence of such agreement, the council cannot serve its own purpose. More often than not, the parties represented on the council do not reach agreement and their endeavours simply result in airing their respective views or sharing their experiences and ideas. No wonder this council is labelled by some as a talking shop!

The MCESD should however be a functional institution that puts in practice the concept of social partnership and social dialogue. In this respect, it is encountering serious difficulties. Social dialogue is highly promoted by the council members but is not embraced by all parties when it comes to effectiveness or materialisation.

The council is merely becoming a gathering of the constituted bodies, the trade unions and high civil service officials whereby their own "parochial" views on major issues are transmitted to the government. There is no concerted effort to come forward with a common stand contributing towards the national interest. Putting it crudely, the stress is on the dialogue aspect rather than the partnership realisation.

The problems faced by the council are the result of lack of commitment on the part of the members, lack of transparency, the absence of a media-friendly approach and bad publicity vis-a-vis the general public. All of this could be remedied if MCESD is restructured to meet today's demands. It needs to revisit its modus operandi, its internal structures and procedures. It is almost impossible to enjoy the benefits experienced by similar institutions in other European countries unless restructuring takes place.

I do not share the view of the Union Haddiema Maghqudin (UHM) and others who are soliciting the introduction of the voting system at council proceedings. In this case, the application of the majority rule is counter productive and eradicates the concept of consensus. Consensus is the natural outcome of social dialogue following a give-and-take approach during negotiations.

On the other hand, I fully comprehend those who suggest that council members may refrain from conceding to a common agreement in order not to jeopardise their loyalty towards the members or the organisation they represent. Perhaps, the social pact negotiations failure and the repeated unproductive pre-budget consultations are only few examples of the MCESD inefficiency and lack of commitment to reach consensus. So what needs to be done?

The composition of the council should be revised to cater for 13 seats; one occupied by the chairman and three seats allocated to each of the representative bodies: trade unions, employers, government officials and the civil society or NGOs.

The chairman shall be nominated by the Prime Minister after effective consultation with the council members.

The nominations for council members shall be made collectively by the respective representative body.

Presently, the trade unions sitting on the council are represented by four seats, two assigned to the General Workers' Union and two for the Confederation of Malta Trade Unions (CMTU). Other unions, such as those affiliated to the Forum, are not represented. With three seats available, it would be up to all trade unions to nominate their representatives on behalf of the trade union movement and not in the name of the organisation the individual member represents.

Likewise, the employers' organisations have to collectively nominate three representatives. In view of the fact that presently the employers' organisations represented on the council are five, they may opt to nominate their representatives on rotation basis.

The role of the government representatives shall be redefined in a way that allows the members to participate effectively and not sit on the council to bow to his master's voice. Although it is understood that they represent the government interest they need to have a free hand in their deliberations. A clear distinction shall be made between government policy, as in politics, and the executive governance of the country.

NGOs shall sit on the council on an equal footing with the other member organisations. Currently, they are participating on a sub-committee level.

The council's technical staff shall play a major role in the execution of the MCESD proceedings. So far, they were considered as back-up force to the council with no significant contribution.

There needs to be a mixture of competent and qualified personnel consisting of economists, accountants, sociologists and public administrators. They shall produce technical papers on the subjects listed on the council agenda, carry out surveys, analysis and research work and publish leaflets and quarterly reviews on topics related to the performance of the council for public consumption.

Rather than informative sessions, the MCESD shall hold productive meetings. Discussions shall focus on particular subjects supported by documentation prepared beforehand by the technical team. Once discussions are concluded, a written formal advice shall be submitted to the government for consideration. In case no consensus is reached, the MCESD will forward a report to the government, with the diverse opinions expressed by the members. There would be no harm if it is felt necessary to present a minority report.

The agenda of council meetings shall not be determined by the government but the council itself which shall take the initiative to raise issues of national interest whenever it deems fit to do so.

Relations with the media are of paramount importance in terms of publicity and transparency. However, in recent years, the council took a rather sceptical approach towards the media. The sensitive nature of certain meetings and the idea that the media may act as an intruder to the council proceedings took precedence over the MCESD obligation (being a national institution) to keep the public informed and updated with its business. It is about time that regular media briefings are delivered by the MCESD chairman.

The MCESD technical publications and annual report shall also be made available to the public.

Looking back, the MCESD can be described as a positive experience in the development of social dialogue in Malta. But it needs to evolve to the next phase in order to meet the European standards of social partnership at national level. With the present set-up, the MCESD is doomed to be more of a talking shop or a convenient rubber-stamp for the government or any social partner for that matter.

Restructuring MCESD is the solution. It is in the national interest.

Mr Micallef is a former MCESD member representing the trade unions.