One of the most important debates was whether the MCESD should have an executive rather than a consultative role - or a hybrid of the two. The Union Haddiema Maghqudin's report by John Grech suggested an executive role for some policy areas. Why not?
In my personal opinion, I consider the debate to be healthy as it means that the value of the council is recognised. But the functions of the MCESD are established by law.
That is an excuse I hear often. The law can be changed.
In my personal opinion I think it should remain a consultative body. It is made up of people appointed by individual bodies, none of which are in any way entrusted to be an executive body of the state. The government consults them regularly and gives a lot of importance to what they say but it is in no way bound to take that advice.
The delegates represent large chunks of Maltese commercial, industrial and entrepreneurial society and express their opinions in a very free and open debate. It is taken for granted that they have different agendas as they have different interests and there is by no means any certainty that there will be consensus.
Having said that, the views are remarkably convergent and by and large we reach consensus on a wide range of subjects. The discussions are put into a document, which is then passed on to government which then has to decide whether to take the advice, to ignore it, or even to take parts of it.
At the end of the day, none of us, neither the chairman nor the members, will ever have to face the electorate to give an account of what we have done. Delegates of the constituted bodies will need to give an account to their own members - but that is hardly the same thing.
So this is why it should remain consultative. And this is not necessarily a bad thing. It allows the council to be more free with its advice, far more open, far more forthcoming, far more liberal.
Why aren't its views made public? How else could the government's decisions be scrutinised? How can the government be held to task for the advice it ignores?
In many cases there is no need to make them public because the government follows the advice given so there is no controversy.
The main topic on which there was no consensus was to do with days off in lieu of public holidays. In this case, the members did actually speak to the press. The workers' representatives are still against this and are still talking about it.
Isn't that what you wanted to avoid? Didn't you want the MCESD to speak with one voice?
There really is an absence of controversy in most cases. Since I was appointed in April we have debated a number of subjects, the most high profile one being the pre-budget, which had over 40 measures that fell under our remit.
There was also an issue about the amount to be paid out as COLA.
The Prime Minister just told me that there was consensus about this at the MCESD.
There was. The employers were wondering whether the COLA mechanism - not the amount of the COLA - should be revisited.
Isn't one of the issues whether the COLA should be applied across the board - or whether workplaces with collective agreements should be exempted?
The perennial argument is whether it should be imposed on people who are not unionised, or on people who are covered by a collective agreement. But then it becomes messy to administer...
COLA is a very precise instrument that works very well - but perhaps the time has come to review how it is applied. This does not mean that it needs to be changed but maybe it could be applied in a different way.
The mechanism was actually created with input from the council and everyone seems to be happy with the way in which it measures the cost of living.
But the fact remains that it is given to workers irrespective of productivity gains, thereby affecting competitiveness.
This is why I think that we will eventually have to talk about it. It is too important to ignore.
What about the level of government involvement? The General Workers' Union wanted less. Is it important, one way or the other?
Yes, because the MCESD is a forum that offers advice to the government.
So should they be part of that process?
I do not think we have any problem speaking our minds in front of government. I think it is good to have people there to explain government's policies, which are after all mandated by the people.
It is good to maintain a perspective on what is possible. The council may come up with something that runs counter to policy - or to the national interest. Having someone there to remind you of that keeps everyone's feet on the ground and reminds them of the fiscal, economic and social realities.
#$And so to the role of the chairman. The Leader of the Opposition suggested he should have a higher rank - but I think something may have been lost in translation. Was it a ministerial rank or a cabinet rank? Isn't the chairman already on a cabinet sub-committee?
I was present during his address and what he said was that the chairman should have access to the Cabinet, but not that the chairman should be a minister. I stand to be corrected as I have not discussed this with him at all and it was one sentence out of a long speech.
The important thing is that he wants to heighten the profile of the MCESD by giving the chairman more access.
But he certainly seems to view the council as being very relevant and one that a government that he might lead would be prepared to listen to, so much so that he would want to listen to its advice, as and whenever it is offered, together with his colleagues during a cabinet meeting.
The constituted bodies are usually represented by the general secretary or director-general and by the presidents and chairmen. Is that the best solution?
It is not for me to say. They are invariably extremely well informed and qualified persons - but one thing I would like to see is continuity.
At this point in time, everyone is doing a great job and I am honoured to be chairing such able people. But the representatives of the unions have continuity; they have been around for years, with all the experience that represents, while the employers' presidents - although valid contributors to the debate - are often only in their role for a relatively short time.
Maybe it should remain as it is but maybe the members should reconsider appointing someone for a longer time. I stress that this is entirely up to each various member organisation to consider.
You wanted to focus on a more proactive approach, as well as to ensure that there were briefing notes prior to meetings. Do you have enough resources?
There are two types of resources in this context: financial resources (which you never have enough of); and human resources.
So far we are coping. For example, at a recent meeting we were discussing labour law and an excellent paper was drawn up by three experts we commissioned.
We will eventually have to have some in-house resources but you will always need to listen to outside opinions as that is what leads to a healthy and informed debate.
Going back to your question, the labour issue was an example of the council being proactive. We are discussing how labour law could be made more effective in order to better cater for the great changes underway. Once we get the ball rolling we can allow the members to take it back to their own organisations and move it on from there.
This is how I plan to take the council forward as long as I am here.
Over and over again, there are calls for civil society to be included...
I believe in civil society and in what it can contribute. I am very interested to hear those views. I met the sub-committee on civil society a few times and also the individuals concerned on a one-to-one basis. So you are preaching to the converted.
But the law setting up the council lays out clearly who should be a member.
The law will have to be changed if there is a merger between the Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise and the Federation of Industry. Why not include civil society then?
I am not excluding anything. As with everything, I think the law should be revisited periodically, preferably as a result of advice that this council itself sends to government.
If this council agrees that the way in which it is constituted needs to be revisited then we can have a debate, see what we would like and send our opinion or opinions to government.
I understand that no votes are actually taken. Are minority reports being issued?
Instead of the usual set of minutes at the end of each meeting, we now have what we refer to as the "chairman's conclusions". I sit and write a summary of the discussions, including all the opinions. This is sent as a draft to the members for their comment. So far, nobody has queried its accuracy.
The conclusions are then sent to government. I have excellent access to the government. I am ex officio on two Cabinet sub-committees.
So back to one of my previous questions... Why doesn't the public have access to these conclusions?
It is not something that we have ever discussed. Depending on what the council decides, I don't think the document should be made public - perhaps one might consider briefing the media when appropriate.
It is a matter of transparency as well as a matter of education. Wouldn't it help if people understood the arguments for or against various issues?
It is not that easy as issues are not finalised neatly during one meeting. They take time to gestate and I think it could be negative and counterproductive to talk about something before the end of the process...
So publish them at the end of the process...
I suppose it would not be a problem then. I tend to believe that they should not be made public but that maybe we could improve our communication with the public.
The Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD) was established by an Act of Parliament (Act No XV) in 2001 as a body corporate having a distinct legal personality.
Mission statement
"To be a consultative and advisory body to government on issues relating to the sustainable economic and social development of Malta, whilst providing a forum for consultation and social dialogue between social partners and, where necessary, with civil society organisations.
Indeed to achieve this mission, the council in all its actions, whether undertaken on specific request by government or on its own initiative, seeks to reconcile individual sectoral considerations to achieve the overriding national interest."
The present council comprises: (chairman) Sonny Portelli; (deputy chairman) Godwin Grima, principal permanent secretary; Ministry of Finance; Ministry for the Family and Social Solidarity; Ministry for Foreign Affairs; Economic Policy Division; Governor of the Central Bank of Malta; Confederation of Malta Trade Unions; General Workers' Union; Union Haddiema Maghqudin; Malta Employers Association; Malta Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise; Malta Federation of Industry; Malta Hotels & Restaurants Association; and the General Retailers And Traders' Union.
Besides the 14 council members, an equal number of substitute members has been appointed.
Three specialist working committees monitor and advise the council on competitiveness, the role of government and the public health sector.
A standing civil society committee was also appointed.
In my personal opinion, I consider the debate to be healthy as it means that the value of the council is recognised. But the functions of the MCESD are established by law.
That is an excuse I hear often. The law can be changed.
In my personal opinion I think it should remain a consultative body. It is made up of people appointed by individual bodies, none of which are in any way entrusted to be an executive body of the state. The government consults them regularly and gives a lot of importance to what they say but it is in no way bound to take that advice.
The delegates represent large chunks of Maltese commercial, industrial and entrepreneurial society and express their opinions in a very free and open debate. It is taken for granted that they have different agendas as they have different interests and there is by no means any certainty that there will be consensus.
Having said that, the views are remarkably convergent and by and large we reach consensus on a wide range of subjects. The discussions are put into a document, which is then passed on to government which then has to decide whether to take the advice, to ignore it, or even to take parts of it.
At the end of the day, none of us, neither the chairman nor the members, will ever have to face the electorate to give an account of what we have done. Delegates of the constituted bodies will need to give an account to their own members - but that is hardly the same thing.
So this is why it should remain consultative. And this is not necessarily a bad thing. It allows the council to be more free with its advice, far more open, far more forthcoming, far more liberal.
Why aren't its views made public? How else could the government's decisions be scrutinised? How can the government be held to task for the advice it ignores?
In many cases there is no need to make them public because the government follows the advice given so there is no controversy.
The main topic on which there was no consensus was to do with days off in lieu of public holidays. In this case, the members did actually speak to the press. The workers' representatives are still against this and are still talking about it.
Isn't that what you wanted to avoid? Didn't you want the MCESD to speak with one voice?
There really is an absence of controversy in most cases. Since I was appointed in April we have debated a number of subjects, the most high profile one being the pre-budget, which had over 40 measures that fell under our remit.
There was also an issue about the amount to be paid out as COLA.
The Prime Minister just told me that there was consensus about this at the MCESD.
There was. The employers were wondering whether the COLA mechanism - not the amount of the COLA - should be revisited.
Isn't one of the issues whether the COLA should be applied across the board - or whether workplaces with collective agreements should be exempted?
The perennial argument is whether it should be imposed on people who are not unionised, or on people who are covered by a collective agreement. But then it becomes messy to administer...
COLA is a very precise instrument that works very well - but perhaps the time has come to review how it is applied. This does not mean that it needs to be changed but maybe it could be applied in a different way.
The mechanism was actually created with input from the council and everyone seems to be happy with the way in which it measures the cost of living.
But the fact remains that it is given to workers irrespective of productivity gains, thereby affecting competitiveness.
This is why I think that we will eventually have to talk about it. It is too important to ignore.
What about the level of government involvement? The General Workers' Union wanted less. Is it important, one way or the other?
Yes, because the MCESD is a forum that offers advice to the government.
So should they be part of that process?
I do not think we have any problem speaking our minds in front of government. I think it is good to have people there to explain government's policies, which are after all mandated by the people.
It is good to maintain a perspective on what is possible. The council may come up with something that runs counter to policy - or to the national interest. Having someone there to remind you of that keeps everyone's feet on the ground and reminds them of the fiscal, economic and social realities.
#$And so to the role of the chairman. The Leader of the Opposition suggested he should have a higher rank - but I think something may have been lost in translation. Was it a ministerial rank or a cabinet rank? Isn't the chairman already on a cabinet sub-committee?
I was present during his address and what he said was that the chairman should have access to the Cabinet, but not that the chairman should be a minister. I stand to be corrected as I have not discussed this with him at all and it was one sentence out of a long speech.
The important thing is that he wants to heighten the profile of the MCESD by giving the chairman more access.
But he certainly seems to view the council as being very relevant and one that a government that he might lead would be prepared to listen to, so much so that he would want to listen to its advice, as and whenever it is offered, together with his colleagues during a cabinet meeting.
The constituted bodies are usually represented by the general secretary or director-general and by the presidents and chairmen. Is that the best solution?
It is not for me to say. They are invariably extremely well informed and qualified persons - but one thing I would like to see is continuity.
At this point in time, everyone is doing a great job and I am honoured to be chairing such able people. But the representatives of the unions have continuity; they have been around for years, with all the experience that represents, while the employers' presidents - although valid contributors to the debate - are often only in their role for a relatively short time.
Maybe it should remain as it is but maybe the members should reconsider appointing someone for a longer time. I stress that this is entirely up to each various member organisation to consider.
You wanted to focus on a more proactive approach, as well as to ensure that there were briefing notes prior to meetings. Do you have enough resources?
There are two types of resources in this context: financial resources (which you never have enough of); and human resources.
So far we are coping. For example, at a recent meeting we were discussing labour law and an excellent paper was drawn up by three experts we commissioned.
We will eventually have to have some in-house resources but you will always need to listen to outside opinions as that is what leads to a healthy and informed debate.
Going back to your question, the labour issue was an example of the council being proactive. We are discussing how labour law could be made more effective in order to better cater for the great changes underway. Once we get the ball rolling we can allow the members to take it back to their own organisations and move it on from there.
This is how I plan to take the council forward as long as I am here.
Over and over again, there are calls for civil society to be included...
I believe in civil society and in what it can contribute. I am very interested to hear those views. I met the sub-committee on civil society a few times and also the individuals concerned on a one-to-one basis. So you are preaching to the converted.
But the law setting up the council lays out clearly who should be a member.
The law will have to be changed if there is a merger between the Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise and the Federation of Industry. Why not include civil society then?
I am not excluding anything. As with everything, I think the law should be revisited periodically, preferably as a result of advice that this council itself sends to government.
If this council agrees that the way in which it is constituted needs to be revisited then we can have a debate, see what we would like and send our opinion or opinions to government.
I understand that no votes are actually taken. Are minority reports being issued?
Instead of the usual set of minutes at the end of each meeting, we now have what we refer to as the "chairman's conclusions". I sit and write a summary of the discussions, including all the opinions. This is sent as a draft to the members for their comment. So far, nobody has queried its accuracy.
The conclusions are then sent to government. I have excellent access to the government. I am ex officio on two Cabinet sub-committees.
So back to one of my previous questions... Why doesn't the public have access to these conclusions?
It is not something that we have ever discussed. Depending on what the council decides, I don't think the document should be made public - perhaps one might consider briefing the media when appropriate.
It is a matter of transparency as well as a matter of education. Wouldn't it help if people understood the arguments for or against various issues?
It is not that easy as issues are not finalised neatly during one meeting. They take time to gestate and I think it could be negative and counterproductive to talk about something before the end of the process...
So publish them at the end of the process...
I suppose it would not be a problem then. I tend to believe that they should not be made public but that maybe we could improve our communication with the public.
The Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD) was established by an Act of Parliament (Act No XV) in 2001 as a body corporate having a distinct legal personality.
Mission statement
"To be a consultative and advisory body to government on issues relating to the sustainable economic and social development of Malta, whilst providing a forum for consultation and social dialogue between social partners and, where necessary, with civil society organisations.
Indeed to achieve this mission, the council in all its actions, whether undertaken on specific request by government or on its own initiative, seeks to reconcile individual sectoral considerations to achieve the overriding national interest."
The present council comprises: (chairman) Sonny Portelli; (deputy chairman) Godwin Grima, principal permanent secretary; Ministry of Finance; Ministry for the Family and Social Solidarity; Ministry for Foreign Affairs; Economic Policy Division; Governor of the Central Bank of Malta; Confederation of Malta Trade Unions; General Workers' Union; Union Haddiema Maghqudin; Malta Employers Association; Malta Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise; Malta Federation of Industry; Malta Hotels & Restaurants Association; and the General Retailers And Traders' Union.
Besides the 14 council members, an equal number of substitute members has been appointed.
Three specialist working committees monitor and advise the council on competitiveness, the role of government and the public health sector.
A standing civil society committee was also appointed.