Editorial

Now that the outrage over the arrogance shown by public transport drivers has receded somewhat, national interest is again turning to the future of the shipyards. Discussion over the government's decision to privatise the dockyard, officially announced in Parliament on July 2, had reached its peak when it was rudely interrupted by the shenanigans resorted to by transport workers over another government decision to liberalise the hearse service. The government held firm to its stand and when, following a court decision and the award of compensation, the hearse owners backed down, the sympathy strike by the transport workers was called off.

The shipyards' privatisation exercise is expected to be launched on August 11 when the government intends to publish calls for those interested in taking the 'yards over to submit an expression of interest. In view of this, the government has started talks with the General Workers' Union over early retirement schemes for the workers. The aim apparently is to reduce the workforce from 1,700 to between 450 and 700.

What stands out in the privatisation programme is the short time within which all this is planned to be done. According to the accession agreement with the European Union, the government will not be allowed to continue subsidising the shipyards after the end of this year.

The deadline marks the end of the seven-year restructuring programme intended to see the shipyards become financially viable. Despite all the money and the goodwill pumped into the reform programme, the 'yards did not make it and the government saw no alternative other than deciding to privatise. The government may well be justifiably criticised for not launching the privatisation exercise earlier, as this newspaper did some time ago. The criticism still holds, even though the government may argue it could not do so as it had yet to find its feet following its re-election in the March general election. Well, since it had been so confident of winning the election, it could have made the preparations before. But governments do not generally work in this manner.

In analyses over the future of the shipyards, it is generally remarked that these are still valuable assets for the country and that the enterprise still possesses people with skills that should not be undervalued. This may well be true but the point is that they have not been well managed. When he spoke about the government's decision to privatise the 'yards, the Prime Minister said the reform programme had produced results up to 2005 but then two big contracts in the following years had brought the 'yards to their knees.

According to the government, losses were made because of lack of productivity but the GWU has been sharply criticising the executive management over "major mistaken decisions". The union has even called for a public inquiry into the Fairmount ship conversion contract.

Blaming the workers, the union or the management, or all three, for the failure of the reform programme is a useless exercise now. A rational assessment of the situation indicates that the best solution is for the shipyards to be handed over to professional operators that could finally turn them into a profitable enterprise. That will be good for the country and the workers on its payroll.