The government must be honest with the public and the workers at the Malta Shipyards and tell them that the targets will not be achieved by the deadline imposed by the European Union – 31 December 2008 – and that the workers will be made redundant on l January 2009.
There was ripe speculation in the press about the privatisation of the Malta Shipyards and unless the government seeks the permission of the European Union to pump further state aid into the industry, the fate of the Malta Shipyards on l January 2009 shall be either privatisation or redundancy. We have so far seen no enthusiasm to make this intervention from the EU possible in government; not from the government nor the shipyards’ management, not even the trade union representing the workers. I am sure that the government will not risk the livelihoods of 1,761 workers and their families. So the only viable option left is to privatise.
It is useless for the CEO of the Malta Shipyards Limited and the Minister to insist that workers need to give 100 per cent for the duration of their eight hour shift, because even if the workers were to give more than their 100 per cent, it will not be enough to make the shipyards viable. It is a shame how the CEO and the Minister only mention the workers as the major blame for the losses at the shipyards and see no reason why they should inform the public as to what the real reasons are behind these losses.
First of all, there is the Accession Treaty, which the government signed with the European Union on the Malta Shipyards. The government agreed to stop subsidising the shipyards after 31 December 2008 if the Malta Shipyards Limited is no longer viable. It also agreed that the workers cannot work more than 212 days in one year and that the workforce shall be not more than 1,410. Malta Shipyards cannot sign any work which exceeds 2,035,000 hours in the 10 years starting from 2002. It cannot build any ships which exceed 10,000 tonnage in one year, nor even one ship in the 60,000 tonnage category until 2008.
The government also agreed to close Dock Number One and if the closed dock is re-used for other activities, these must be independent of the companies owning the shipyards at present and must not be related to shipbuilding, ship repair or ship conversion. It also undertook that, with regard to the required reduction in manpower of the ‘yards, it shall ensure that the necessary core workforce with the essential skill levels is retained, that training programmes associated with the restructuring plan must be compatible with the generally applicable Community rules and that any aid granted by the government in breach of these conditions shall be reimbursed.
As you can see from the above, we have retained 1,761 workers when we ought to retain only 1,410, we have led a voluntary redundancy scheme without taking into account that the core workforce with the essential skill levels is retained so that the shipyards lost many of these skilled workers, the majority of whom are idle till this day, although they still receive their salary from our taxes. It is no wonder that they should thank the EU for providing them with this opportunity to get paid for doing nothing, or relatively nothing.
But the same cannot be said for those who remained at the Malta Shipyards. They know that their days are numbered and they have to witness bad management practices, which seem not to bother the shipyards’ management or the government. The CEO at the Shipyards, Cris Bell, bless him, yearly earns £100,000 Sterling in income, protection insurance, health insurance, car, phones, internet, LM208 cost of living and LM9, 600 accommodation. I am sure that Mr Bell knows that no importance was given to yacht repair, so this lucrative industry has dwindled drastically under this management.
He is also aware that excessive amounts of money were wasted on unnecessary subcontracts and in effect, the General Workers’ Union suggested this month that subcontracts should be awarded only whenever shipyard resources were exhausted. The GWU also criticised the management for employing an excessive number of casual workers as this was resulting in unnecessary financial losses. The management has also opted for subcontracting instead in investing in the upgrade of machinery so that certain works can continue to be done by MSL workers. People who work there tell you that there are thousands of liri in machinery that is outdated and that the management does not take action to either upgrade it or to dispose of it before it becomes a total loss.
The GWU lately also urged the workers to pump more money into the Malta shipyards because the LM4 million investment for 2003-2006 was rather scanty and inadequate. But the GWU knows that the Accession Treaty does not allow the government to be more generous. The EU allotted Malta MTL419, 491,000, out of which LM300 million were written off. Of the rest, LM9,983,000 counts as investment aid in accordance with the capital investment plan included in the restructuring plan, LM4,530,000 as training grants, LM32,024,000 as compensation for social costs of restructuring, LM17,312,000 aid for financial costs, LM3,383,000 as other aid linked to financial costs of training grants and the capital investment subsidy, LM51,804,000 as working capital subsidy which decreases over time so that no more than 25% of the amount actually paid out may be paid out during the last four years of the restructuring plan: i.e. 2004 - 2008.
How these millions of liri were spent by the Malta Shipyards we still do not know, just as we do not know or cannot decipher how they can state that the company has registered a LM9 million loss when the company’s financial report for the past three years has not yet been concluded. How can the management and IT Minister Austin Gatt confront the press and announce a LM9 million loss when this is not supported by any financial report or audited accounts of the Malta Shipyards Limited? How can we ascertain that the millions of liri paid by the taxpayer were spent according to Malta’s agreement with the EU? Up to now we only have the Minister’s and the management’s word that there are losses, and that the workers are to blame for these losses.
However, I cannot understand how the company can still be a financial report for the past three years, when Malta committed itself to supply yearly reports, sent to the EU every March, on the implementation of the restructuring plan. According to the Accession Treaty, the reports shall include all relevant information to enable the Commission to assess the situation with regard to the implementation of the restructuring programme, including the pricing behaviour of the ‘yards for new ship-repair and shipbuilding contracts. The shipyard’s yearly production report must specify the compensated gross tonnage of eligible outsourced works according to the actual period of time over which they were carried out by third parties and include this in the calculation of the compensated gross tonnage of the shipbuilding contract. In the case of ships whose construction extends over two years, the compensated gross tonnage figure shall be frozen at the end of the year in order to prevent retroactive corrections. The shipyard must also be able to produce all contracts relating to the outsourcing of works allowed by the EU in the Treaty.
But now the clock is ticking and the bomb will explode on 31 December 2008. We are still unaware of the contents of the annual reports submitted to the EU, if any, and the workers are being kept in the dark about their future. The government cannot procrastinate further and the workers must know as from now, on the eve of the general election, what the government and the opposition have in store for them on 1 January 2009.
Dr Alfred Sant knows that he has his hands tied by the EU and cannot promise any financial aid to the shipyard workers. Dr Lawrence Gonzi, on the other hand, must be honest with the workers and tell them whether the company is for privatisation or redundancy. Workers must know as from now because this insecurity is not allowing them to make any plans for the future: they cannot invest in property as banks will not be enthusiastic to lend money to these workers when their working life is on the edge; they cannot make any other investments; they cannot decide if they can send their children to private schools; they cannot decide if they can afford to pay further education to their children… in other words, they cannot lead a normal life because the government does not want to divulge what are his plans on the shipyards.
And until the government asks Brussels for a review of these conditions, we have to say that by 31 December 2008 the Malta Shipyards will either close down or be privatized: workers beware.

Addendum

I fully concur with Mr Buttigieg’s reaction to my piece on equality and confirm what he said about the purchase of movables without the consent of the other spouse. We have reduced the community of acquests to the community of debts, because it is only when there are debts that both spouses are roped in the matter.
Allow me also to highlight the plea of our geography students at the University when the BA programme in geography is not allowing them to further their studies anywhere in the EU because geography is considered is a science degree and not an arts degree. Can the university rector take note and convert the BA geography course into a B.Sc one?