When more and more public bodies and councils abroad are opening their doors wide open to the public and the press, in Malta an institution whose work is of direct interest to each and every citizen chooses to slam it in their face.
It is not without good reason that the Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry once described the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development as a rudderless, irrelevant and inconsequential national body. That description fits it like a glove. However, instead of trying to reinvent itself, as it were, the MCESD often exposes itself to criticism over matters that ought not to arise at all.
The press were recently invited to cover a council meeting that aimed to discuss the Malta Employers’ Association’s proposals for amendments to the Employment and Industrial Relations Act, a matter that is of great interest to employers and workers.
The press is usually only allowed to cover the opening of council meetings and reporters must wait until the meeting is over to learn of the outcome, a practice that, strangely enough, does not seem to have ever been contested, as it should have been. This time, though, the reporters were given the marching orders before the meeting even got underway due to a disagreement over what part of the proceedings they could cover.
The pettiness of it all is hard to believe. The president of the Malta Employers’ Association questioned the presence of the journalists. When the council’s chairman explained that it was normal practice for reporters to cover the first part of the meeting and that his understanding was that the media could stay for the presentation of the association’s proposals, the GWU objected as, it argued, this would lead to the media not being able to report the views of trade unions.
Faced with these objections, the chairman asked the press to withdraw.
Is the MCESD that inflexible not to see the value of the press reporting the presentation of the proposals and the discussion that followed? Considering the nature of the proposals made, particularly one regarding union recognition and self-inflicted illness, the public has a direct interest in the views expressed at the council.
The council may argue the members may not feel at ease discussing issues in the presence of the press but when, as already remarked, the trend is for public bodies and councils to open doors, their stand is hardly valid and, in any case, the public is entitled to know what is being discussed in a national institution of this nature.
In Britain, the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act of 1960 stipulates that “a body may, by resolution, exclude the public from a meeting (whether during the whole or part of the proceedings) whenever publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted or for other special reasons stated in the resolution.” But surely this does not apply to a council meeting called to discuss amendments to the Employment and Industrial Relations Act.
When will the MCESD be reformed to make it possible for it to make a sound contribution?
A working group within the council last year made a number of recommendations for its restructure. Are they being acted upon?
Rather than closing its doors to the press, the council ought to let some fresh air in and resolve to set about doing what is necessary to turn itself into an effective institution.