 |
|
|
|
local
news
GWU EU report – a labour of
love
Not many of our experts on aspects of European Union membership
will wind up millionaires, if their admittedly cryptic comments
on reimbursement for reports written for the General Workers' Union
are anything to go by.
As the mystery thickens over whether the writers' suggestions were
taken on board in the GWU's final report, which its members voted
on last night, the authors themselves gave their feedback on the
controversial issue, and some also showed that EU experts could
also have a sense of humour.
Lawyer Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi declined to divulge the amount he
was paid for his two reports, on Free Movement of Capital and Free
Movement of Goods, but stressed he would not be taking early retirement
on the amount he was paid.
"I can also assure you I had a VAT receipt," he said,
tongue-in-cheek.
Godfrey Baldacchino, who wrote on the issues of Social Policy and
Employment Education and Training and Youth, meanwhile, also laughed
off any rumours that might be circulating about high fees being
charged for the reports.
"I was paid Lm25 for my work, that was my fee," he said
with a philosophical laugh.
Asked whether he felt his own worked was reflected in the final
GWU report, Dr Baldacchino stressed that this publication defined
itself on the opening page as not being holistic.
"It is made clear that the report is specifically defined in
terms of reference to certain areas where the GWU's members will
be affected and where restructuring is needed, such as domestic
manufacturing, the Shipyards and other parastatals," he said.
"In all fairness, the report raises the topical issue of the
lack of co-ordination from the government's side to come up with
a masterplan in this respect."
He stressed he viewed the report as a "very good critical paper",
which should oblige the government to get its act together.
"But, at the same time, it is unfair to use it as a paper to
oblige its members to vote on a motion," he said.
Asked whether his suggestions were taken on board, Dr Zrinzo Azzopardi
stressed that he had never been made to believe his work would be
compiled as a publication.
"I was asked to carry out the work, I discussed the issues
from the legalistic aspect, and I was under the impression that
the work would then be the property of the GWU – what happened
to it then was the union's business, " he said.
He added that in the first part of the report, a reference is made
to the research carried out, although it is not direct.
"But how they used the contributions is up to the GWU,"
he said.
Marie Briguglio, whose work focused on the Environment, supported
this point of view.
"Admittedly, I prepared a 70-page report on the impact of the
EU's Environmental Acquis on Maltese Society, which was not used,
but the GWU has every right to pick up or ignore the contributions
it commissioned in this respect. The union fulfilled its obligations
with me and I did the same," she said.
But Ms Briguglio admitted she felt it was only fair that there was
no implication that the final report was, in any way, a reflection
of the studies undertaken.
She also stressed that since the GWU report focused on certain sectors,
such as the economy, this should be remembered when the country
came to vote at a referendum.
"The GWU has the right to place emphasis on certain areas in
its report, but the citizens must look at the whole picture when
it comes to the crunch," she said.
Benny Borg Bonello, who wrote the report on the Impact of EU Directives
on Consumer Affairs in Malta, was very reticent about the work he
undertook for the GWU.
"The relationship between the GWU and me was a private one,
I was just doing a job I was asked to carry out," he said.
Asked whether the conclusions of his report were reflected in the
final report issued by the GWU, Mr Borg Bonello insisted that this
also impinged on the confidential relationship he had with the union.
"I was simply a doing a job, for which I was paid," he
said. But he did not wish to divulge the sum paid to him, preferring
instead, to hang up when asked.
Some of the authors, meanwhile, held back from making comments on
whether their suggestions had been taken on board, by admitting
they had not read the GWU's final report. Alfred Griscti, who wrote
about the Free Movement of Persons admitted he had not yet studied
the report that has become such a hot potato.
|
|
|
