MPs call for certification requirements for tradesmen

A bill on the mutual recognition of academic and vocational qualifications between Malta and other states found unanimous support when it was given a second reading in parliament yesterday.

Members from both sides of the House augured that it would lead to more trades and skills being certified in Malta according to foreign standards. Opposition MPs said that while they agreed that qualifications should be recognised, they were strongly against Malta opening its doors to EU workers, as would happen if Malta joined the bloc. Education Minister Louis Galea denied that EU accession would see Malta opening its doors to foreign workers.

Dr George Vella, deputy leader of the opposition, (who spoke on Tuesday) said there were positive aspects to the bill in that more professions would be certified.

The problem was that this bill had been moved not because of the need to raise local standards or align them with those abroad, but because of EU membership requirements. One of the four freedoms of the EU was the free movement of people and workers, and that could not happen unless qualifications were recognised.

It was well known that if Malta joined the EU, workers and self-employed people in the EU would have the right to work here as from day one. The government would not be able to introduce any conditions which could discriminate against EU nationals and favour Maltese.

The government had claimed it had agreed a mechanism with the EU to reduce the number of EU nationals wishing to work here if that number was too large. But nobody knew how that agreement would work.

Government documents showed that no proper study had been made on the economic impact of foreigners working here and the demands that their presence in Malta would have on social policy, including health, education and housing.

EU nationals working for three years in any EU member state had the automatic right to retire there and benefit from the local health and social structures. Those working for a period of two years or who were injured at their workplace, had the right to live in the state they had worked or been injured in.

If a worker paid national insurance he could become a resident of that state, and his children could benefit from the educational structures there, such as the University of Malta. Such workers also had the automatic right to benefit from social services and to receive unemployment benefit. All these financial burdens should be quantified. It was wrong to promote recognition of qualifications and afterwards assess the costs involved.

He was not against regulations on the certification of qualifications. The recognition of standards was necessary.

However, one could not allow foreigners to seek work in Malta without control.

Dr Karl Chircop (MLP) said this bill would hopefully speed up the process for Malta to have National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs).

That this bill could ease the movement of foreign workers and self-employed to Malta was a matter of concern, not least since there were already 12,000 seeking work in Malta. The local employment sector was expected to get worse as Malta prepared for accession, particularly through the lifting of import levies and the opening of the labour market to foreigners. The situation was already bad enough, with the economy practically stagnant.

Malta needed an employment strategy, particularly to tackle the mismatch between available skills and job vacancies. It certainly needed a better trained workforce, particularly in the vocational area.

Dr Jean Pierre Farrugia (PN) said opposition speakers had raised the point of unemployment in the EU. Yet youth unemployment in Malta, as calculated in the Labour Force Survey (people up to 24 years old), was three times higher here than in the EU.

The EU labour market was also performing better than in the United States.

EU membership would mean better employment and study opportunities for the Maltese. It would also boost foreign investment in Malta, thus creating more job opportunities here as well.

Mr Carmelo Abela (MLP) said youth unemployment remained one of the major challenges to the EU. The situation was especially serious in the EU countries that were closest to Malta.

EU membership in itself was no guarantee of investment. Neither was the EU's option of a partnership with the EU. What counted was the ability of the Maltese. If anything, the MLP's option was better because Malta would be free to offer the incentives it deemed necessary to attract investment.

Should Malta join the EU, the Malta University would be the only one which would be free of charge, serving as a magnet to foreign students. What would the consequences be, when no discrimination could be made among students? Would the current situation at the University remain unchanged?

This bill, Mr Abela said, should be used for Malta to achieve mutual recognition of qualifications not just with EU countries, but beyond.

Mr Charles Buhagiar (MLP) said the opposition's position in this debate was to promote and safeguard the interests of Maltese workers first. It wanted qualifications here to be equal to those abroad, and for the qualifications of the Maltese to be recognised abroad. But it still felt the local labour sector should be protected from an influx of foreign workers.

The opposition was backing this bill because the recognition of degrees in terms of this bill would still not give any foreigner an automatic right to work in Malta, since warrants, licences and permits were still required in most cases.

However, joining the EU would see those barriers lifted, something which the opposition was against. It was worth pointing out that this bill applied to the recognition of qualifications of anyone from teachers to bus and taxi drivers.

Mr Buhagiar said Malta needed to broaden certification of trades and skills, for example, tile-layers and painters, giving clients an assurance that the workers they engaged could do the work required of them. Indeed, there was also need for formal training of such tradesmen so that painters, for example, could choose the right paint according to the nature of stone used in particular buildings.

Mr Buhagiar said there were already too many foreign workers in the construction sector, and Maltese workers were complaining that they did not have work. One could only imagine how the situation would deteriorate if Malta joined the EU.

Labour MP Joseph Cuschieri said that even the arrival of a small number of workers from the EU, if Malta joined the bloc, would create problems here because of the small size of the labour sector.

As a result of this bill, the Maltese workers could end up competing against millions of workers from EU states, leading to a deterioration of local working conditions.

It was true that the Maltese would be free to work in EU states but it was wrong to give the impression that it would be extremely easy for Maltese young people to work in the EU.

Indeed, those people who wished to work in the EU and were suitably qualified could already do so.

Winding up, Education Minister Louis Galea said the Opposition had turned the debate into a platform for their anti-EU propaganda.

It was not true that EU workers would have unrestricted opportunities to work in Malta upon Malta's accession. The agreement reached between Malta and the EU after complex and difficult negotiations gave the right to the Maltese government to stop any influx of EU workers, if it ever happened in the first seven years after accession. After the first seven years, if there was an influx of workers, Malta would still be able to seek a remedy through the EU structures. On the other hand, there would be no restrictions on Maltese wishing to work in EU member states.

It was good to note that both sides agreed that the bill, offered opportunities for Maltese studying abroad. Indeed, this bill had not been moved just because of accession preparations, since it could apply to agreements with any state.

The bill was later approved through all stages.