Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi yesterday described an opposition motion on changing the composition of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development to include the Forum Unions Maltin as contradicting the principles of consultation and social dialogue.

Declaring that the government would be opposing the motion, Dr Gonzi said the government respected all unions and their contribution. The government’s opposition to the motion should not be interpreted as a sign of disrespect and lack of appreciation of the work carried out by the unions making up the Forum.

During the last few months the government had given all the space possible to the Forum including their official presence in the MEUSAC where no consensus among the council members was involved. The government would continue to listen to what the Forum members had to say.

The Prime Minister criticised the opposition for being contradictory, claiming that it should have consulted the MCESD before announcing next Friday’s protest demonstration. The PL had ignored the MCESD and decided to take to the streets. Dr Gonzi said he would defend the right to protest but the PL had to be consistent in its actions.

The opposition was telling the government to impose even though the MCESD council members disagreed on the representation of the Forum. He was sure that the MCESD, which was built on consensus, and the Forum disagreed with this strategy.

The socialism of imposition had long been buried. A solution could only be found through consensus among the social partners. He had instructed Parliamentary Secretary Chris Said to follow this path and had already met with the social partners to arrive at an agreed solution.

The Prime Minister gave the background to the setting up of the MCESD under a legal framework, adding that the consultative forum had originated under a Labour government under a structure which had not been regulated by law.

As Minister for Social Policy in 1998, he had started the process to amend the Conditions of Employment Relations Act (CERA), the Health and Safety at the Place of Work legislation and the regulation of the MCESD by law. All these changes had been achieved through consensus not only in Parliament but also with the social partners.

The MCED legislation was drafted by ILO expert Giuseppe Casale, who had met the social partners. There was no imposition.

A solution had been found on the representation of many organisations through a committee for civil society within the MCESD. This gave flexibility to the MCESD to increase the members of the council according the issues at hand.

He was sure that the Forum did not want the solution proposed by the opposition. What would happen if employers made a similar request?

Dr Gonzi called on the opposition to rethink its stance. He presented an amendment to the opposition’s motion, urging the government to continue the dialogue with the social partners on how the organisations involved could give their contribution as MCESD members or as members in one of its structures. While there was no imposition from the government, the door had not been closed.

The Prime Minister appealed to all MCESD members to contribute towards a solution.

Earlier, introducing the motion, opposition spokesman on social dialogue Gino Cauchi said the composition of the MCESD should reflect the changes throughout the years. The motion’s aim was for the Forum Unions Maltin to join the MCESD. Meanwhile, he also suggested an amendment to include the Gozo Business Chamber.

While the motion was presented seven months ago, the government kept persisting in its position. Moreover, the law was never amended. The government kept arguing that there was no consensus in the MCESD to allow the Forum to join.

The MCESD was to be a consultative body to advise the government on development. However, in various occasions, the government did not consult it before taking important decisions.

The MCESD was reduced to a talking show, as it had no power. Certain members argued that it was useless attending to meetings. Others argued that ministers only informed the MCESD of their decisions. This was also the case in the increase of utility tariffs, VAT on tourism and the increase of fuel and gas prices.

When two members united, the government did not require consensus and decided that they should still retain two votes in the MCESD. However, the government required consensus for the Forum and the Gozo Business Chamber to join the MCESD.

Since the GRTU decided to stay on the employers’ side, representatives of employees were in a minority. The government was excusing itself to satisfy certain individuals who were not comfortable with certain unions.

Where did the law require consensus to permit the joining of members? Since the law was clear and did not provide for consensus, the government was at fault when it adopted a position not to accept the request by the Forum to join the MCESD.

He argued that in certain countries the council was formed by the employers, unions and civil society. Such format would put the council in a better position while the government would be in a better position to take decisions after having consulted it.

Mr Cauchi augured that with the motion things would change. The MCESD needed to be more represented and more consulted. It should also be active and pro active, he said.

Dr Said said that the government was always in favour of social dialogue. Indeed, in the first months of this legislature there was a record of consultations including on the rent, education, and transport reforms. The government had implemented its decisions not only after having consulted with the MCESD but also after having consulted with other stakeholders.

While the MCESD was exposed when there was disagreement, consensus was reached in almost all meetings. Almost all social partners argued that any change should take place through consensus.

The MCESD worked in silence. Dr Said said that he himself had suggested that the media should not be present at its meetings. The cooperation from unions and employers was instrumental in tackling challenges.

There was an agreement that to change positions, there should be consensus. However, he had suggested to set up a working group to analyse how to achieve a better composition of the MCESD. The government could well have argued that the social partners did not accept. However, he had written to the social partners on several solutions. Yet, the majority of members argued that the council members should not increase.

Dr Said stated that, perhaps, the opposition wanted the government to go against the majority of members in the MCESD. The government was not ready to go against the majority of members. Dr Said asked members to create space for all those organisations to participate in social dialogue. During last Wednesday’s MCESD meeting, all members agreed in principle to create such space.

Dr Said also proposed to set up a working group to identify organisations that requested to join the MCESD and to determine how they could participate in different levels of social dialogue. Meanwhile, all members had agreed with this suggestion.

While Mr Cauchi argued that there was nothing in the law requiring consensus, Dr Said referred to Article 5(1)(a) which stated that one of the MCESD’s functions was to promote social dialogue and consensus.

Concluding, Dr Said said that the government’s amendment to this motion encouraged it to keep moving towards the good direction. He also appealed to social partners to help during discussions to assure that all those who wanted to take part in social dialogue would be able to do so whether in the MCESD or its committees.

Also taking part in the debate were Frederick Azzopardi (PN) and Anġlu Farrugia (PL). Their contribution will be published tomorrow.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.