Let us not hide behind the reports that tell us that the shipyards cannot stand on their feet, and that privatisation is the only way forward. We all know how reports are born: you first establish your objective, and you then seek experts who justify your objective in their report.
It is the same in separation cases, when the father of the child wants to increase or decrease the times and days of access: you go to a child psychologist or a social worker and tell her what your wish is, and he or she will devise a report which accommodates your wishes. If not, you hop on the next one until you get what you want.
It is the same with the shipyards. The government must be honest and say outright that it did not want the shipyards to survive and all these years its agenda was privatisation. Were it not so, government would have sought the permission of the European Commission to extend the deadline for viability.
The agreement the government signed with the EU allows for this: it says that if viability for the shipyards cannot be achieved owing to exceptional circumstances, unforeseen at the time the restructuring plan was drawn up, the Commission may review the conditions in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 88(1) of the EU Treaty. Nothing of the sort was done and there was no inclination to do so either.
We must not forget that the point of departure is that this government has been in control of the shipyards for 20 years, during which time it was not able to make this industry viable. Not only that, but it entered into an agreement with the EU which limits the way the shipyards can do business. It is therefore a shame to blame this blunder on the workers when the major responsibility is to be shouldered by the management. Of course the management put up the white flag and retreated when they saw the storm coming.
Let us not forget also that the old management was replaced by a new Chairman who comes from the same line of business as the Malta Shipyards; but before the elections the government insisted that this was pure coincidence and that his appointment had nothing to do with the privatisation of the shipyards. Let us hope that there is no inside trading and conflict of interest in the privatisation process of the shipyards.
The government agreed to close Dock 1 of the Malta Drydocks for shipbuilding, ship conversion and ship repair for at least 10 years from 2002; and if the closed dock is re-used for other activities, these must be independent companies owning the shipyards at present and must not be related to shipbuilding, ship repair or ship conversion.
The government also agreed that for the period from 2002 until 2008, the workforce cannot exceed 1,410 persons who cannot work more than 2.4 million man hours per annum and the number of sold man-hours for ship-repair and ship conversion shall not exceed 2,035,000 until 2012, and they cannot build ships which exceed a maximum annual production 10,000 compensated gross tonnage.
With all these limitations which the government was happy to sign with Brussels, I invite you to tell me who would commit a company that is drowning to further restrictions? Imagine you have a baby who is drowning and you continue to duck him and then come forward and say that the baby did not make it. Malta Shipyards could never have made it and the reason is because the government wants to get rid of this enterprise.
The agreement also says that the government has to supply the EU Commission with yearly reports on the implementation of the restructuring plan and that the reports shall include all relevant information to enable the Commission to assess the situation with regard to the implementation of the restructuring programme. This information includes the pricing behaviour of the yards for new ship-repair and shipbuilding contracts. Outsourcing was also was one of the conditions. In fact, Malta had to provide a report every March and the last report had to be submitted by the end of March 2008.
According to the agreement, Malta must submit seven reports: one for each year from 2003 to 2009. Does any one of you know what these reports are all about? I am sure that you do not because neither the government nor the EU has had the decency to inform us how the matter is being reported by the government to the EU. Nor have I ever read that there was any willingness from the government to publish these reports or table them before the Parliament, and I strongly invite Parliament to urge the government to do so because we all have a right to know where our money has gone.
If Malta Shipyards is a question of safeguarding the taxpayers’ money, then the government must have no qualms about publishing these reports. Let us not forget that according to the agreement signed with Brussels, it committed itself to give training grants of up to more than Lm4.5 million. How much of this money was spent, and what training grants were offered, we do not know. Only these reports can enlighten us.
If the taxpayers’ money is held so much at heart, then maybe they can also explain how the CEO of the shipyards receives a salary of £110,000 sterling, income protection insurance, health insurance, car, phones, internet, Lm208 cost of living and Lm9,600 accommodation; and how he was not brought to book for failing to achieve his targets.
It suffices to mention that the government was obliged to keep the skilled workers at the shipyards, but instead opted for early retirement so that many of these skilled workers are blessing the restructuring because they have discovered that they can skip work and still get paid, and this is something they were not able to do at the Drydocks.
Even the unions of the workers, I am sorry to say, did not lift a finger during the restructuring period and what they are doing now is just lip service, because it is too late, and the fate of the Malta Shipyards has been sealed.
Let me just quote to you what Minister Austin Gatt was reported by The Malta Independent 25 July 2007 (a year ago): “The Minister said there would be no redundancies in 2007 and that he was not trying to pin the blame on the shop floor workers. ‘What we are saying is that everyone must work harder to turn the situation around. There is no more money. The yards have to pick themselves up. And it can be done; we have shown the 2004 figures and if that rhythm was kept up, then we would be meeting and surpassing targets.’”
Twelve months later, Minister Gatt has now changed the rhythm from meeting and surpassing targets, to doom, gloom and privatisation.
And if the management could not foresee this 12 months ago, then no wonder that the shipyards are in the state they are now!