The majority of social partners are complaining they were not consulted on the revamped citizenship scheme, even though the government had trumpeted its “talks with constituted bodies”.
Five of the seven constituted bodies represented on the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development,the body within which national social dialogue takes place, insist such an important matter should have been the subject of discussion within the council.
They say the ideas would have been discussed and a better scheme may have emerged as a result.
When Prime Minister Joseph Muscat announced details of the new scheme on Monday, he was flanked by representatives of the Malta Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry, which is a member of the MCESD, and Finance Malta, which is not.
The vice-president of the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association, another member, was at the table as well but it emerged later that this was on his personal initiative.
At that news conference, Dr Muscat said the details had been drawn up following consultation with constituted bodies.
Whoever made the decisions should shoulder the responsibility
However, the chamber was the only member of the MCESD involved in direct discussions with the government over the new scheme – and it is only one of two social partners that have come out clearly in favour of it.
Contacted yesterday, most of the other social partners – the Malta Chamber for Small and Medium Enterprises – GRTU, the Union Ħaddiema Magħqudin, the MHRA, the Malta Employers’ Association and the Forum grouping of trade unions – all said they were not consulted on the matter. The only other member in favour of the scheme is the General Workers’ Union.
Even though it was not consulted, it welcomed the revised programme, saying in a statement that it would be of benefit to the country, particularly workers and their families.
However, GWU general secretary Tony Zarb refused to elaborate on the statement.
But asked whether the union had been consulted, Mr Zarb replied: “Did you see us around the table (during the press conference)?”
It has also been clarified that, although MHRA vice president Tony Zahra was involved in the discussions, he was not representing his association at the talks.
MHRA president Paul Bugeja said yesterday that the association did not have an official position on the new scheme.
Another entity in support of the revamped programme is the Malta Developers’ Association, but it too is not on the MCESD.
The Individual Investor Programme will offer Maltese citizenship to non-EU nationals for a total of €1.15 million.
As opposed to the original €650,000 donation contemplated in the scheme as first announced,
the new one obliges future Maltese citizens to purchase a property worth at least €350,000 or pay an annual rent of €16,000, as well as make an investment of €150,000 in government stocks or bonds. The investment and property must be retained for a minimum of five years.
UĦM general secretary Josef Vella said when contacted that the union still had its reservations about the scheme, specifically on whether it will be beneficial to the Maltese economy.
Whoever made the decisions should shoulder the responsibility
He said that apart from having expected something like this to be included in the electoral programme – “it seems to have been on the cards from before the general election” – the union was against it in principle.
“I would have expected it to be raised at MCESD level so it could be debated properly,” he said.
Moreover, Mr Vella is sceptical on the amounts being cited under the new scheme. He believes €350,000 is too little for “a proper investment” in property.
He also lamented the fact that the scheme is not tied to the creation of employment opportunities, saying this was “a real pity”.
In the same vein, the director general of the MEA, Joe Farrugia, as well as Forum president Paul Pace and GRTU president Paul Abela said such a scheme should first have been discussed at the MCESD before being made public.
“Now, whoever made the decisions should shoulder the responsibility,” Mr Abela added.
All three said their organisations did not have an official position on the new scheme.
Chamber of Commerce president David Curmi told Times of Malta that his organisation had “played an active role in making a number of concrete proposals aimed at radically changing the programme as originally designed and legislated by the government”.
He explained that the Chamber’s proposals, which were presented to government and the Opposition in early December, were “well-received” by the latter and “accepted” by the government.
“The Chamber’s sole interest in the matter was to mitigate Malta’s reputational damage which, at the time, was widespread in both the local and international press,” Mr Curmi said.
“The proposals were included by the government in the new programme in their entirety, making the programme significantly different from its original version.
“It was on other issues that political consensus could not be reached and not on the proposals that were submitted by the Chamber,” he added.