The Malta Employers’ Association believes that the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development, the MCESD, should not give up its role as a “consultative and advisory body”, because this is its greatest strength.

It also believes that the practice of social dialogue should continue to be based on the tri-partite model, and the government should therefore continue to be represented on MCESD.

In a position paper on the MCESD’s structure, the MEA said the general gist of the paper was that, “as the saying goes: ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’.”

The MEA said there was no question that consensus on any issue had been a rare occasion, and this was the source of frequent misplaced criticism and disillusionment about MCESD. However, there were two questions on the matter: Did the lack of consensus arise because of the MCESD structure? And should the extent of consensus or otherwise be a yardstick with which to measure the MCESD’s effectiveness?

With respect to the first question, the MEA said, no structure in itself could guarantee consensus, since this would depend on the issue in question, and the disposition of the social partners to reach consensus.

Secondly, it was clear and understandable that social partners, and indeed, different organisations within the same camp, may have their own agenda which made consensus unlikely on hot issues. If the MCESD’s role was taken to be that of a consultative body, then consensus was not a necessary condition for its effectiveness.

A more realistic approach would seek to achieve convergence among the social partners, not consensus, the MEA said. One could argue that although consensus had indeed been lacking on most issues, the debates had managed to bring parties closer to each other. The outcome of this was that, even in disagreement, there was a mutual understanding of divergent positions.

The MEA said discussions needed to be more structured to avoid having members shooting from the hip. For example, rather than having everybody commenting at the same time on national budget proposals, each organisation could be allotted a 20-minute space to deliver a presentation, which would be followed by questions from the other members.

Organisations, it added, should be encouraged to present position papers on issues that were going to be discussed at MCESD. These could be circulated before a meeting on the related topic was held and should prove to be a basis for discussion. MCESD should also commission reports by experts on specific issues.

MCESD could prepare a report on the outcome of discussions. Even in case of lack of consensus, a report could be prepared that specified the stand adopted by different organisations. MCESD members can be asked to sign such reports to endorse its contents, and the report could serve as a consultation document for the government on which to base its decisions.

This would be a better alternative than deciding by vote. Voting on issues carried the danger of redefining MCESD’s true role as that of a consultative body, it said.

The government was not bound to abide by the recommendations of the social partners, even if there was consensus among the non-government members at MCESD, the MEA said. However, in such instances, MCESD members, individually or collectively, could publicly voice their concern and mount pressure on the government to react otherwise.

A lot of good has come out of the MCESD, the MEA said, although its role as a forum for social dialogue was overshadowed by public perception that social partners never agreed on anything, and that MCESD, through such procrastination, hindered the government from taking decisions.

The MEA proposed that there should be the participation of the civil society in the MCESD. It was recommended that there should be two seats on the MCESD allocated to representatives appointed from among the civil society organisations. The appointees may not be fixed, but could be selected from among the civil society committee depending on the issues being discussed.