Labour law has embarrassed the opposition - Gonzi

The parliamentary debate on the Employment and Industrial Relations Bill showed how this bill had embarrassed the opposition, Social Policy Minister Lawrence Gonzi said yesterday.

He said when concluding the debate in second reading stage that contrary to what Opposition leader Alfred Sant had said, this bill confirmed the government`s view that economic and social development went hand in hand.

The opposition`s embarrassment was borne out by the fact that while some opposition speakers had praised aspects of the bill they viewed as positive, others said the bill counted for nothing and was moved only because Malta needed to meet EU requirements.

Some opposition speakers were struggling to justify the opposition`s decision to vote against this bill even in second reading stage, when it was the principle of the bill which was debated.

While members of the opposition claimed this bill was not a step forward, he had been asked in the House Business Committee for the debate in committee to be made in the whole House.

Clearly the opposition was lacking the moral courage to say this was a positive law, even if there may not be agreement on all its clauses. Indeed, it was over such clauses only that the opposition should have considered voting against, during the committee stage.

The opposition criticism was based on the time it took for the law to be moved, what was viewed as being a lack of vision and that this bill was the result of EU prompting, criticism which again underscored the opposition`s EU phobia.

Dr Gonzi said that while the government had been accused of having taken 12 years to move this bill, one had to consider the situation in, say, 1987 and what needed to be done before this bill could be moved. For example, how could the bill account for the labour corps, whose members could not be members of trade unions?

Over the past years, had the government not concentrated on Malta`s infrastructure and investment climate, the discussion about workers would not be over their rights.

Dr Gonzi said he also wished to point out that the proposals for legislative changes were completed by the then MCED only in May 2000 and last December the government published its White Paper, a period of 22 months.

The Labour government in 22 months did nothing except hold a seminar.

Dr Gonzi referred to Dr Sant`s remarks in the morning and said he strongly suspected that Dr Sant had not read the bill and the White Paper. How else could one explain his statement that the bill did not respond to Malta`s social as well as economic needs, or that it lacked vision on restructuring?

Dr Sant had ignored the provisions of the bill protecting workers who were on reduced hours or part time. It provided for parental leave and offered new protection for foreign workers working in Malta legally. There were also provisions against sexual harassment and all forms of discrimination at the place of work.

The bill also included obligations for employers to offer training opportunities for all their workers, including part-timers and those on definite contracts. It introduced a new conciliation mechanism, broadened the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, created the Guarantee Fund and protected workers against collective dismissals.

The bill also protected workers from mergers and changes in company ownership and gave rights to workers on basic information which they should be given by employers.

Dr Gonzi said this bill was part of a mosaic which included other initiatives, such as the setting up of MCAST and the institute for the certification of vocational skills, and the record sums being allocated to the Employment and Training Corporation as it increased the training it provided for the unemployed.

Dr Sant had claimed this bill lacked vision only because he had not read it.

How could this bill be said to be neo-liberal, which meant that market forces should determine everybody`s fate? This bill was the exact opposite. Dr Sant was turning everything upside down.

Turning to the list of essential services, Dr Gonzi said the list given in the bill was the same as given in a document of the International Labour Organisation, minus telephone services, which were not included in the bill.

What opposition speakers had not said was that workers providing essential services would, for the first time, have the right to refer their industrial disputes to the Industrial Tribunal. That meant the government was giving up its final say on such issues.

Concluding, Dr Gonzi said this bill should make Malta proud. It was the fruit of input by all the social partners and it deserved the support of the House and all the country.

The bill was then given a second reading, the opposition voting against without calling a division.

The opposition, however, called a division when Dr Gonzi moved that the committee stage be considered by the standing committee for the consideration of bills. The motion was approved with 33 votes in favour and 27 against.