Opposition warns against unjustified strike-offs

The House of Representatives yesterday debated provisions in the Budget implementation bill providing that job seekers who refuse training offered by the Employment and Training Corporation (ETC) would be transferred to part two of the employment register.

Education and Labour Minister Louis Galea explained that unemployed workers who refused job offers were already transferred to part two of the register from part one. Part two also included people who have left their previous employment of their own volition.

In the budget speech the government had announced that the ETC would be holding a number of job training programmes for the unemployed, including one, launched recently, that offers on-the-job training to people aged over 40, with the ETC subsidising them up to the minimum wage.

Dr Galea said anyone who refused such training programmes or services without sufficient reason would also be transferred from part one to part two of the employment register.

Karl Chircop (MLP) said this amendment was good in principle. Training was important, but it had to be ensured that the programmes offered were suitable to the unemployed workers concerned. One could not draw a straight line because there could be very valid reasons why some workers turned down courses. The ETC needed to be humane with these people and not strike them off part one of the register to keep down the number of registered unemployed.

He also urged the ETC to work more closely with the Education Department to evaluate the problems which job seekers had.

Marie Louise Coleiro (MLP) also complained of unemployed persons being unfairly struck off from part one of the employment register. Appeal procedures before the Employment Authority took months to be decided, during which time the people concerned had no financial income. There needed to be an efficient framework to prevent injustices.

Ms Coleiro asked if the programmes the minister had spoken about included welfare to work schemes. The unemployed workers, she said, would have no choice but to accept the training offered them, whether they liked the work involved or not.

The Labour MP also urged the ETC to offer more job opportunities to people with disabilities.

Dr Galea agreed that the ETC should be humane in its dealings with the unemployed. Indeed, his own impression was that sometimes it was bureaucratic in its implementation of the law. The ETC probably had ideas on how to do things better, and these methods would be discussed at the opportune time.

The government did not want to hide the unemployment problem in any way. There would always be genuine cases which administrators should spot so that they were not unfairly struck off part one of the register.

On the other hand there was a certain level of abuse, especially by people who were working while registering as unemployed.

Unless the ETC had the mechanism to push an individual to work some people would never return to work. The same applied for training courses.

On the register of persons with disabilities, Dr Galea said the number of such people placed in jobs was rising as the notion of equality took better hold. But there were certain cases of disability which really gave employers great problems.

Opposition leader Alfred Sant said there could be instances where a particular scheme would never fit the personal circumstances of an individual. This would almost inevitably place the individual in the wrong part of the register. Who would decide what was a good and reasonable cause for a person to miss a training programme?

Dr Galea said people who were struck off could appeal before the National Employment Authority. The authority upheld appeals in many cases. It would not be good policy to deprive the ETC of the right to take such decisions, because it could give rise to abuse.

Dr Sant warned there could be potential abuse in that people would be struck off the register after being offered courses which were clearly inappropriate for them. Furthermore, the procedure before the authority took too long and was taxing on the unemployed.

A faster, more efficient appeals system should be introduced, such as an Ombudsman.

Dr Galea said he agreed on the need for procedures which would not take so long, which was why he had said at the beginning that things should be done better.

The debate continues on Monday.