Malta’s mosaic of human resources includes those who have some form of physical, sensorial or mental disability. To ignore or impede them suitable access to suitable job opportunities would be unjust to them, but would also diminish the human resource base.
It is sad, though, that the assertion by the Group that employers may be showing scant respect to the employment legislation regarding the disabled has elicited no response from employers’ associations
The first part of that observation is duly recognised in the laws of Malta. The Declaration of Principles in the Constitution starts with the declaration that the state “recognises the right of all citizens to work and shall promote such conditions as will make this right effective”.
Article 21 of the Education Act, 1988 specifies that: “It shall be the duty of the state, having provided for the education of Maltese citizens to enable them to form their own independent judgement, to establish such scholastic facilities which the state may deem necessary to provide those citizens with the opportunity to qualify in trade, skills, artisan or technical or commercial activities, and in the professions in order to prepare, instruct and instil discipline in those citizens for work in the community.”
The 1969 Employment (Handicapped Persons) Act obliges employers of more than 20 persons to include a minimum number of disabled persons equivalent to a “quota” or “standard percentage” of two per cent.
The 2005 Report of the Working Group on Inclusive and Special Education observed that there is always some gap between declarations and implementation of principles.
In the case of persons with a disability, the Report said, the gap between the right to work and actually finding work does not seem to be diminishing. It noted as an observable reality that the requirement of the 1969 Act is honoured more in the breach than in observance. Parents of disabled students stressed to the Working Group that for their children transiting to the workplace was like trying to cross an unending desert, hardly ever alleviated by an oasis of any description.
Official statistics underpin that claim. The Working Group published data collated by the Principal Permanent Secretary which showed an internal survey revealed that there were 174 public service employees who were registered as disabled persons with the KNPD, or 0.6 per cent of the total of the 30,644 employees (then) in the service. That total was minute, compared with the 1,738 employees in Government departments and ministries who claimed to be disabled, and were classified as such, in an NSO Labour Force Survey.
The discrepancy made the Group doubt to what extent the rest of the 7,226 who, in the NSO survey, claimed disability or long-standing health problems could be termed as disabled in the sense of this report. The number of really disabled persons in employment was, probably, very much lower. It noted, nevertheless, that month after month there are several hundred registrants on the ETC Register of Unemployed Disabled Persons.
Parents of disabled students tell anybody who wishes to listen that the inclusive and special education process must not lead to an employment desert. It is not enough to stress that disabled persons should be recognised for their positive potential, rather than be rejected, frequently with blind prejudice. The Working Group insisted there ought to be awareness among employers that, whatever the different colour of our personal make-up, all of us together constitute the rainbow of humanity. If it did not include each one of us, the rainbow would be incomplete.
The report called for more stringent enforcement of those provisions that seek to extend to students and other persons with a disability the opportunity to transit to the workplace, and to make their contribution to it through suitable gainful employment. “Employers should be spurred to follow the example of those among them who spurn prejudice, and uninformed reluctance, to recognise that, to provide opportunities to disabled persons, is not only morally correct and fair, but also enriches their workforce and economic operation,” the report insisted.
The Working Group called on the public sector to give a lead towards that direction, by improving its existing positive policy regarding the employment of persons with a disability. According to that policy if a registered disabled person does not satisfy the eligibility requirements in calls for applications, but is, nevertheless, capable of carrying out in essence the duties attached to a particular post/position, such a person may ask for special consideration when applying. A procedure exists in the Public Service Management Code to be followed in such cases.
Few would disagree with the Working Group that the top and abiding priority of provisions to satisfy individual educational needs must remain the fullest appreciation and development of the positive qualities and potential of each individual. Or that there has to be a dynamic and consistent approach to utilise and build upon such qualities, and to realise the potential through inputs that consistently add value and enable the individual to reach the highest achievable degree of self-reliance.
The recommendations contained in the report of the Working Group on Inclusive and Special Education on ways to try to help the disabled cross the workplace desert attracted little attention.
The disabled are not everybody’s baby. It is sad, though, that the assertion by the Group that employers may be showing scant respect to the employment legislation regarding the disabled has elicited no response from employers’ associations.
That position has not improved since the report was published.
Many of the recommendations of the working group were implemented by the previous government and other progress has been made. But times move on. The ministers and parliamentary secretaries in charge have fresh challenges to tackle.