A number of social partners who attended a discussion meeting on the General Workers’ Union proposals for a reform of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development agreed yesterday that the council is important for ensuring social dialogue in Malta.

The major issue on which the social partners present commented was whether the government should form part of the MCESD.

The GWU’s proposals for a restructuring of the MCESD envisaged a better council without government interference, with the social partners being able to speak and express their opinions more freely.

Most social partners commented that if the government is looking at the MCESD as a consultative council in order to advise government on its decisions, the government cannot take a leading role. On the other hand, they said, an MCESD without government does not make much sense either.

Former MCESD chairman Edward Scicluna said that the MCESD as an advisory body is working well, but he blamed negative public relations for the fact that the public, through the media, is not well-informed about the outcome of MCESD meetings and the advice that would have been given to government. He said the MCESD should never become “parliament number two”.

Professor Scicluna agreed with most of other speakers that the government should sit in on and listen to discussions and base its final decision on the report/position paper given to it after an issue has been discussed. “The government has to be present, but should not take the leading role because it is the recipient of the final opinion,” he said. With regard to the issue of voting, Professor Scicluna said this was “not an issue”.

The former MCESD chairman said that the issue of a social pact was over-burdening the MCESD, and that the wrong impression is usually given that the MCESD can be wrapped up because there is no social pact. There is much more that is done, he said.

Joseph Farrugia, from the Malta Employers Association (MEA), said the MCESD suffered because of PR. “Many a time, what happens behind closed doors at an MCESD meeting is totally different from what actually makes it to the papers, and this must be resolved once and for all,” he said.

Mr Farrugia said the MEA has drawn up proposals for a restructuring of the MCESD which “are not as drastic as the GWU’s but should still be effective”. He remarked that the lack of a proper procedure during MCESD meetings was a “major drawback”.

The issue of PR – negative PR that is – was also raised by Professor Edward Zammit, who had chaired the historic meeting in November 2004 at which the social pact was about to be signed before high hopes vanished into thin air.

“The fact that the MCESD’s PR comes through a number of journalists outside the meeting room does not make much sense,” said Prof. Zammit. “It is better if there is a proper event to make the final position public.”

Malta Chamber of Small and Medium Businesses (GRTU) director-general Vince Farrugia was critical of the GWU’s proposals and said the union was trying to “kill one body to give birth to another”.

“Who said that the MCESD is not functioning?” he asked. “I agree that we need to address certain problems, but there is no need to re-invent the wheel. The GWU’s proposals are based on the European model but this cannot be done because the EU has no government. If we increase the number of participants, there will be less agreement and the government needs to be present to hear, at first hand, the opinions of the different social partners. We need to discuss a reform but not starting from scratch. We cannot rock the MCESD boat,” he said.

Closing the meeting, GWU secretary-general Tony Zarb said the union felt the need to put forward these proposals “in the country’s best interests”. He said the union was prepared to discuss these proposals and be flexible because, after all, the union, like all the other social partners, wants a better and more effective MCESD.