Call for setting up of competitiveness targets

The government needed to establish competitiveness targets and benchmark itself regularly and not just wait for comparisons with other countries made by the EU, Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Leo Brincat said yesterday.

Speaking during the Lisbon agenda debate in Parliament, he said the government should appoint a senior figure from outside the public sector to identify bureaucratic bottlenecks and propose ways to remove them.

The government also needed to instil an entrepreneurial culture in the education and public sectors.

Malta also needed to avoid duplication in the collection of data, but the institutions which most needed that data should not be barred from getting it.

It should also be ensured that the regulatory system, while being serious, was also flexible so as not to hinder competitiveness.

Mr Brincat said Malta needed to establish better linkage between the education and industrial sectors. The tertiary education sector needed to be proactive, not reactive.

The skills mismatch with employment demands was a serious problem which was causing potential investors to worry that they would not be able to find the skilled workers they needed.

He said Malta should allocate greater resources for research and development and there was need for measures for businesses to make greater use of IT.

Mr Brincat said the government's excuse that Malta had joined the Lisbon agenda process five years down the road did not hold water because other countries such as Poland, Slovenia and Estonia had also not been EU members during that time, and they had still performed much better than Malta.

He was strongly of the view that social development should not come second to economic growth. The two had to develop hand in hand. The Nordic countries had managed to do so, and they were the best performers on the Lisbon agenda scoreboard. Indeed, the Lisbon agenda itself spoke of an "active welfare state".

It was useless of the government to speak of subsidiarity and then ignore the social partners and civil society. A case in point was the hurried decision taken on Malta's membership of ERM II. The presentation given by the Central Bank to the Opposition could not qualify as consultation, and the arguments made had not been convincing.

Mr Brincat observed that the Lisbon agenda placed particular emphasis on public-private partnerships. What did the government have to show in this sector other than landscaping?

Concluding, Mr Brincat said the bottom line was that there could not be progress without an economic plan. The government had initially been against drawing up such a plan but had then been persuaded to do otherwise. Still, there was no word on when this plan would surface, and what timeframe it would cover.

Ministers also needed to stop working on their own and coordinate with each other while seeking contact with the people. He feared that the meetings which the Prime Minister had now started with the people at Castille were too little, too late.

It was for such reasons that Malta's economic growth had been negative some time ago and only reached about one per cent last year, compared to four per cent in countries such as Cyprus, Portugal, Greece and Slovenia.

Earlier in the debate, Carmelo Abela, opposition spokesman on education, said the government had planned to take Malta into the EU, but it had then stopped there.

The targets set out by the Lisbon agenda were aims which the country should always have had. What the government needed to spell out was how it would achieve them. The Lisbon agenda scoreboard made dismal reading, showing that Malta had fallen back when compared to other countries. It was all symptomatic of a tired government which had run out of ideas.

Malta had much catching up to do in the education sector. Not only were there not enough students in tertiary education or skills training, but many of those who did follow such courses were not opting for courses which the economy needed most. Career guidance needed to be given greater importance. One could not produce a knowledge-based society if subjects such as mathematics and sciences remained unpopular.

Investment would only be attracted to Malta if the island showed it had the trained workforce to meet requirements.

Clearly, the Lisbon agenda should prompt the government to draw up a Malta agenda.

In the education system, critical analysis and reform were needed in several sectors. The high rate of truancy was a sign of lack of confidence in the system. A substantial number of young people lacked basic skills, and this could give rise to social problems.

Marie-Louise Coleiro, opposition social welfare spokesman, said the government had been saying since 1999 that it wanted Malta to join the EU, so it did not make sense for it to say that Malta had joined halfway through the Lisbon agenda term. It was worrying, however, how the Lisbon agenda scoreboard showed how competing states which used to trail Malta in terms of economic development were now doing better.

The government was only trying to find excuses to cover up for its shortcomings. Even the work done under the National Employment Plan was not in line with the Lisbon agenda, as shown, for example, how female participation in the labour force was way below the Lisbon targets.

In 2002 Malta allocated the equivalent of 4.5 per cent of its GDP to education, a figure which compared well with the EU average, but that in itself was not enough. For how could one explain the high rate of illiteracy in Malta? After almost 12 years in the educational system young people were still leaving school without basic qualifications, fit only to roam the streets.

It was good that the student population at the university was the highest ever, but in spite of the high number of graduates the educational system was still not producing what the labour market needed.

The indicators made shocking reading. The Times had reported how, according to EU figures, Malta had the least educated workforce in the EU. In 2002 only 8.8 per cent of Maltese youths aged over 20 continued their education. Turkey and Bulgaria had better figures.

The most educated workers in the EU were those of Lithuania, where 44 per cent had a degree. The number of Maltese graduates was the lowest in the EU, and just 0.61 per cent of graduates qualified in science and mathematics.

Ms Coleiro said that high-value-added industries were crucial for the creation of productive jobs, but there would be no investment in such industries unless a trained workforce was available. It was not enough to boast of how much was being spent on education: it was more important to look at the directions being taken.

When speaking about competitiveness and globalisation it was no excuse to blame everything on China, because everybody did not have to be in textiles. And competitiveness should not be sought through shedding workers, but greater efficiency and higher standards.

The government was not even doing enough in the environment and it had been shown that greenhouse gases emissions increased by 12 per cent between 1990-2002.

Malta was almost last in all the important sectors of employment, training, education, investment and the environment.

How was social cohesion being addressed to ensure that there was no poverty or social exclusion? The truth was that even data on this sector was lacking.

The cost of living was rising, especially because of new government-induced costs. Living standards were also being eroded in other areas, such as growing waiting lists for operations.

Other speakers will be reported tomorrow. Government speakers are being reported separately.