The deputy leader of the opposition Labour Party, Anġlu Farrugia, contested claims by Social Policy Minister John Dalli that the gainfully occupied last year had increased.
Speaking during the debate on the estimates of the Employment and Training Corporation, Dr Farrugia said that the minister had said that 2,218 new jobs had been created, and this meant that month-on-month the gainfully occupied had decreased.
According to NSO figures, the registered increase in the gainfully occupied between July 2007 and July 2008 was 3,574. The last published figures showed that between November 2007 and November 2008, this increase had been of 2,217. This meant that the gainfully occupied had decreased by 38 per cent.
The trend was continuing at an alarming rate, even if NSO statistics had not yet been published. Between January and March this year, the number had decreased by a further 1,000.
There was a marked increase in part-timers as opposed to full-timers. And a good third depended on part-time jobs for their livelihood. Indications were that this percentage would continue to increase. Something was wrong.
Dr Farrugia asked whether the government was conducting a workforce planning exercise and, if in the affirmative, how the private sector was being involved. At what stage was this planning exercise? Had the Government designed a restructuring plan of the workforce?
He asked how the government was to train employees, not only those in IT, and how it would supply the industry with the trade skills which the government was meant to be designing. Moreover, how were these going to affect the secondary and tertiary education sector?
Dr Farrugia said that if, in four or five years' time, the government must increase the labour supply by 30 per cent, how was it going to incentivise youths, women and those who were 60 years old to join the employment sector?
Did the government know what kind of investment was required in the agriculture, industry, tourism and other economic sectors so that these would create sustainable employment? Would the cost of such investment come from the private sector, the public sector or from the EU?
What practical steps were being taken so that the economy remainsed sustainable?
Dr Farrugia noted that up to March those registering for work in part 1 and part 2 of the register showed a 15 per cent increase. Consequently, there was an increase of 21 per cent on those who had been registering for work in June 2008. This reflected the fact that during the electoral campaign, companies had been employing persons so that the employment picture was rosy.
Once the election was over, unemployment had increased again. Moreover, 30 per cent of those registering for work were between 30 and 44 years old, while those over 45 had already amounted to 35 per cent or 2,500. Dr Farrugia said the government must do more.
Considering the situation from a European perspective, especially in the light of the report of the European Commission, the population would increasingly become an aged one to such an extent that the percentage of those 65 years and over would increase from 18 per cent in 2008 to 30 per cent in 2055.
Moreover, even Malta had an aging population which was higher than the population capable of work. How was the government scientifically planning to meet this expected crisis?
By 2015 and 2035 those above 80 years would increase by 12 per cent. Those living longer would need their pensions, even though those in employment would decrease and therefore there would be a decrease in those paying income tax and national insurance. The proportion of workers to pensioners would decrease from four to one to two to one.
Within the next 20 or 25 years, the likelihood was that the workforce would be cut by half while there would be an increase in the aging population. This was an economic and social situation that the government must address. The EU had drawn the government's attention to this in 2006, but what steps had been taken?
Dr Farrugia stated that rather than concentrate on these difficulties, the government had shifted its responsibility onto others and at times even shied away from it. He called for the training for youths in all employment sectors, and not only in the IT sector, so as to stop the brain drain.
The opposition moreover called for quick action to create jobs, and for the government to provide an economic recovery plan rather than to continue to increase the burdens on employees, employers and industry.
Malta had more sizeable burdens than other EU countries it was competing with. This affected the quality of life, made Malta less competitive, and negatively affected the industry and manufacturing sectors. But worst of all, this impacted on tourism.
The Nationalist government had disregarded this and increased taxes on rooms, the prices of transport and gas. The industries were in such a dire situation that they could not even make projections for overhead costs for the next three months. All these factors had a negative impact on competitiveness, the market, exports and the GDP. These were certainly not the measures that would boost employment.
Dr Farrugia said that deteriorating working conditions almost made it more bearable to be unemployed. Some workers were under threat, others were working on reduced hours, and a number were on definite contracts, which might or might not be renewed.
Some employers asked part-time workers to take up different jobs within their different companies, which meant they did not make up enough hours anywhere. These all contributed to the worker having no control, job security or rights.
Others had to become self-employed, which meant the employers "bought" their services, and did not entitle them to benefits such as vacation leave. In some cases they paid 15 per cent in National Insurance contributions, rather than the customary 10 per cent, and their contract might be terminated at any time. The minister had to do something about this, Dr Farrugia said.
Some private contractors' workers were underpaid, and this was a blatant case of discrimination and exploitation.
Early termination of the contract by the employee meant his having to pay hefty compensation. This was not legal, but if it was, it did not set a good example by the ETC. An employer, on the other hand, could effectively terminate a contract, making for unbalanced rights.
Dr Farrugia asked what Malta's contribution was in projects like NEWES, and how much it had received from the European Social Fund.
There was now a dearth of employment even for men, and the government should see exactly what was happening. Statistics showed that employment availability was on the downtrend in manufacturing, services, agriculture, tourism and other sectors.
It had been very positive that a scheme for employment and training had been set up in Gozo, but it had been stopped in December of the same year.
Concluding, Dr Farrugia said that if greater attention was not paid to what was happening the situation could well get out of hand.
Earlier in his speech, Dr Farrugia said the Auditor General had pointed out that the corporation had outstanding claims which had not yet been examined in depth, and it was not in a position to determine the outstanding claims for training grants under the Business Promotion Act.
This included an amount of €159,000, amounting to 67 per cent of all debtors, and €240,000 due from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.
Dr Farrugia requested clarification as to the directors' remuneration of £150,000.
Labour MPs Charles Mangion, Carmelo Abela, Gino Cauchi and Marie Louise Coleiro Preca also took part in the debate.