The General Workers’ Union is on its own in its claim that the government should withdraw from the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development.

Unions’ and employers’ associations contacted by The Malta Independent yesterday all agreed that the government should continue to play a role on the council.

Last week, the General Workers’ Union proposed the total elimination of government participation so that the social partners would be able to speak and express their opinions more freely at meetings of the consultative council. GWU restructuring proposals also included a three-tiered system of employers, employees and civil society, with a rotating chairmanship

The future of the consultative body is in the balance following the resignation of its chairman, Victor Scicluna, in the wake of calls by the constituted bodies for leadership, and the reform supposedly being planned.

When contacted, both the Federation of Industry and the Malta Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise contended that the future lay in the report drawn up by Joseph F.X. Zahra.

Also last week, the Union Haddiema Maghqudin (UHM) issued a report prepared by Dr John C. Grech which described the government’s presence on the council as vital in order for the MCESD to maintain its current relevance as a forum for social dialogue. The report also criticised the current lack of decision-making powers and called for decisions to be taken by majority voting as the search for unanimity in the past failed to elicit a final position by the council.

Federation of Industry director general Wilfred Kenely believes that MCESD members are wasting their energy in trying to establish a new format for the forum on an individual basis.

“I believe the way forward is to base the future of the MCESD on last year’s report penned by Joe F.X. Zahra, seek his cooperation, and move forward.” He explained that such a move would take into account the different views of MCESD members, as they had participated in the seminar which discussed a reform of the MCESD.

Mr Kenely said he was sure that MCESD members were acting in good faith, however individual efforts wasted precious energies and resources. He believes that the MCESD is not effective as should befit a forum where the highest level of socio-economic discussions and decisions in the country are made.

“A strong MCESD needs a new chairman as soon as possible,” added Mr Kenely.

The Malta Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise said it had noted the proposals put forward by the unions on a reform of the MCESD and was insisting on the need that any reform for MCESD would be based on the various points mentioned in the report compiled by Joseph F.X. Zahra, in which there were a number of proposals on the way the council should evolve.

When contacted, the Malta Employers’ Association said that its committee was currently discussing a position paper which should be issued within the next few days.

Confederation of Maltese Trade Unions president William Portelli said the government must be involved in the MCESD. He said the council must also have greater executive powers on certain issues which were established a priori. Thus council members would know beforehand which issues merited MCESD’s intervention as a consultative body and which issues warranted executive powers. Possible exceptions to the rules must be planned beforehand, explained Mr Portelli.

As regards whether the council should take position only in the event of a consensus or majority, Mr Portelli said the question was debatable and needed to be discussed further. The fact that members have their own opinions showed that they cared about the MCESD and they wanted to be proactive.

Malta Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprises (GRTU) director general, Vincent Farrugia maintains that the introduction of civil society to the MCESD would only weaken it. “With the current tripartite composition, the MCESD is already struggling; a further party will continue weakening it.” He argued that the MCESD is bound by law to be a consultative body on socio-economic affairs. The government representatives’ role is to take into account the social partners’ views.

Mr Farrugia said the future of the MCESD boiled down to its future leader. If the government wanted the MCESD to be a rubber stamp, it should appoint an amicable person. If it wanted the MCESD to be a true consultative body and equal partner to the government, then it must appoint a strong person who could take decisions and lead to an agreement.

When contacted, former MCESD chairman, Prof. Edward Zammit said the body should be inspired by the success of the Employment Relations Board which he currently chairs. He also called for the parties to create secretariats that would help them deal better with the growing number of meetings and discussions in order to improve their performance in similar bodies.

He also proposed conflict-management skills training for the MCESD members. The former chairman said the search for consensus was commendable, however Malta offered a difficult scenario, especially in the light of looming general elections.

Speaking about the executive role of the MCESD, Prof. Zammit said it did not exclude the government from the equation. In The Netherlands, a similar board was only made up of social partners; however there was an implicit understanding that the government would adopt what was agreed by the partners.