Author: SME Chamber

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is convinced that what is needed to best emerge from the crisis is sustainable jobs. That means jobs that enable people to earn an income in a safe and healthy working environment and in a climate that respects workers' rights and accommodates fruitful social dialogue; it also means highly productive jobs that provide added value in terms of innovation, quality, efficiency and productivity. This will enable Europe to generate stable economic growth and to remain competitive against other regions in the world.

Such is the main finding of the own-initiative opinion adopted by the EESC in the course of its plenary session held on 13-14 July, entitled "EU crisis exit strategies and industrial change: more precarious or sustainable jobs?"

The EESC believes that the most important prerequisite for the creation of new jobs is sustainable, stable economic growth; and welcomes the fact that a number of institutions and organisations have made proposals for emerging from the crisis that take account of the social dimension of recovery. Further, the EESC notes that businesses have recourse to various types of employment. This results in new types of work: precarious jobs where people are employed on temporary contracts for low pay with little social security and no legal protection.

The EESC urges the EU institutions to maintain European social standards with more conviction. The lack of decisiveness in this area has led to a growing number of working poor, rising inequality, ever greater fear for the future and, at the same time, a rise in citizens' distrust in one another, social institutions and government – not just national governments, but also the EU institutions.

It is particularly worth noting that there is a valuable appendix to the opinion which contains a number of examples of good practices in various Member States, submitted by CCMI members. The EESC advises the European Commission to promote and facilitate the exchange of experience and good practice.

The EESC is a bridge between civil society and the European institutions. Therefore, your opinion is of utmost importance. Should you have any comments: .

With all the commitments in place, it is now crucial to move on to secure the full implementation of the policy choices made so far. This aim must be achieved both at EU and national level. We believe that the European SME Envoy and its national recently appointed counterparts will be a crucial actor in this process alongside representative business organisations. If each actor rises up to the task, Europe will be able to build what we call "a smart grid for a smart regulation", which will ensure that words will become deeds when it comes to SME policy.

When the Small Business Act for Europe was launched, a comparison with the best practices of the US Small Business Act was inevitable. However, the US SBA is a binding measure, contrary to the European synonymous communication. From that moment onwards, GRTU stressed that the only possible way to go beyond this "original sin" was to follow (mutatis mutandis) the US best practices on consultation and impact assessment. In the United States, the "Think Small First" principle may not yet be a full reality, but it is bound to be the very secret for the success of the SBA.

In detail, the US Small Business Administration, mainly working on direct counselling and support to SMEs, including on access to finance, works by an Office of Advocacy that protects SMEs before the US Congress under the "obligation to consider how small entities will be affected by federal regulatory proposals. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and Executive Order 13272 require federal agencies to determine the impact of their rules on small entities, consider alternatives that minimize small entity impacts, and make their analyses available for public comment.

The Office of Advocacy gives small firm owners and their representatives opportunities to make their voices heard about rules that affect their interests. Annually, the Office of Advocacy helps small businesses save billions in regulatory costs". The Office of Advocacy was created under the assumption that "giving small employers a voice early in the process is key to reducing the small business impact of state regulations while increasing regulatory compliance and passing on cost savings".

The motto for the US administration was that "what is not good for small business is not good for the economy". In the European "smart grid", this should be turned into a positive definition so that all stakeholders recognise that "what is good for small business is good for the economy", and act accordingly.

We believe that the "smart grid" formed by the European and national SME Envoys must reach exactly this aim.

Proposal Name: BIOREMED – Efficient on-site remediation technology for the elimination of soil contaminants, especially chlorinated hydrocarbons
Sub Area 1: Environment / Waste
Closure Date: 06/12/2011

Retrieve the Partner Search at: http://www.ncp-sme.net/Countries/HU/PS-SME-HU-1074

Proposal Name: Development of ready-to-eat meals with satiety properties: Adequacy of the ration quality for the targeted consumer
Sub Area 1: Food
Closure Date: 06/12/2011

Retrieve the Partner Search at: http://www.ncp-sme.net/Countries/ES/PS-SME-ES-1097

Proposal Name: SodSat: Precision management of turfgrass sod production by means of advanced IT technologies.
Sub Area 1: Agriculture / Forestry
Closure Date: 06/12/2011

Retrieve the Partner Search at: http://www.ncp-sme.net/Countries/ES/PS-SME-ES-1107

Proposal Name: SafeHorse: system for monitoring of equestrian activities and its maintenance
Sub Area 1: No sector clearly identified
Closure Date: 06/12/2011

Retrieve the Partner Search at: http://www.ncp-sme.net/Countries/ES/PS-SME-ES-1110

There will be no more places for defective and dangerous toys in the EU market. As from today, new EU rules for toys are in force to fulfill the highest safety requirements worldwide. With the entry into force, the new Toys Directive, all actors involved in the production, selling and control of toys on the EU market will get more responsibilities to better protect children.

First of all, Member States will have to ensure that market surveillance authorities perform adequate checks both at the EU external borders and within the Union itself, also through visits at the premises of economic operators that will ensure the immediate confiscation of dangerous toys.  Second, toy manufacturers, importers and distributors have more obligations too. Before placing a new toy on the market, they will have to identify the hazards and the potential exposure to children via a safety assessment. Finally, manufacturers are also obliged to ensure traceability of the toy by indicating name, address and number of the item.

European Commission Vice-President Antonio Tajani, responsible for industry and entrepreneurship, stated: "Safety for our children is our first priority. We have the best legislation on toys in the world with the highest safety requirements. However, it is not sufficient to strengthen the rules. We also need Member States to ensure enhanced market surveillance deterring fraudulent market operators ". 

Background
The new legal framework will replace the old Toy Safety Directive of 1988. The new directive addresses a wide range of issues to ensure that toys do not present any health hazards or risk of injury. For example, rules preventing children from choking or suffocating as a consequence of swallowing or inhaling toys or their parts are strengthened. Toys in or co-mingled with food always need to be in a separate packaging, and those that can be accessed only after the food surrounding them is actually consumed are prohibited.

Among the most remarkable examples of the risks for the safety and health of children, there are:

• Parts or fragments of toys that can be swallowed by children with the risk of asphyxiation; among which puppets or cards mixed to food without an appropriate protective wrapper;
• Baby-changing tables or highchairs that are not stable enough and may therefore trap the child;
• Phthalates, chemical substances which make plastic softer, used in toys or baby's bottles, which may seriously damage kidneys and liver;
• Counterfeit puppets and dolls extremely inflammable as processed with not conforming varnishes;

Flame retardant chemicals found in some toys causing alterations in the nervous system, possible negative effects on growth, and permanent endocrine system damages.

The EU Commission has prepared a guide with recommendations for consumers on how to protect their children from toy-related risks:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/toys/files/toys-safety-brochure/w-toys-safety-brochure_en.pdf
The European toy industry comprises over 25% of the world toy market. This is a highly internationalized industry and one of the most dynamic business sectors in Europe. Around 80% of the sector is comprised of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) that have less than 50 employees.

In 2009, Total production of toys in the EU amounted to approximately €5 billion (manufacturer's price), of which 80% was generated by France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Spain, the UK, the Czech Republic and Poland.

In the EU, almost 2,000 manufacturers work in the toy sector. The toy industry directly employs nearly 100,000 people across the EU for production, research and development, marketing, sales, distribution, and many other services.

In 2010, total exports of traditional toys from EU27 countries to non-EU countries amounted to €1.05 billion (+10.2% compared to 2009).In 2010, total imports of traditional toys from non-EU countries to EU27 amounted to €6.96 billion (+20.3% compared to 2009).The total retail market for traditional toys in the EU totaled €14.485 billion in 2009. In terms of revenue (turnover at retail including tax), the European toy market was the largest in the world in 2009. In 2009, infant/preschool toys were the leading toy category in the EU, with almost 20% market share.

The Valletta Local Council together with the GRTU would like to bring to the attention of restaurateurs the following legal notice: Deposit of tables and chairs to provide food and beverages (L.N.  119 or 2002)

1. No person may place any table or chair in any street for the catering of food and drinks in any day, or special or specific day without a permit from the Local Council.

2. Applicant shall submit his application not later than one month before the day or the first day as the case may be, or within such other time as may be established by the Local Council.

3. Applicant shall together with an application:

• submit a site plan clearly showing the measurements and the area referred to in the application;
• declare the day or days for which the permit is required.

4. any permit issued by virtue of these regulations shall not exceed the time during which the activity is to be held or sixteen consecutive days, whichever is the shorter period.

• No permit shall be issued by the Local Council for that area prior to the lapse of seven days from the last day of the issuing of a permit for that same area.
• No permit shall be issued in the area immediately adjacent to an establishment selling food and beverages, except to the licence holder of that establishment.

5. An applicant shall ensure that:

• no alcohol or tobacco products are sold to persons under the age of sixteen years;
• no alcohol shall be served in glass bottles but shall be served in a bio-degradable material or cardboard cup;
• the area is kept clean at all times during the activity, and for this purpose the applicant shall provide suitable litter bins for the deposit of waste;
• at the expiry of the authorisation the tables and chairs are removed and the area is left in its original state.

During a meeting held last year between the GRTU and the Local Council, GRTU was assured that there will be meetings between the two parties prior to fresh plans. To date GRTU received no invitations whatsoever for the said meetings only your correspondence informing about fresh drawings to which GRTU strongly objects.

After consulting its members GRTU informed MEPA that it is not in agreement with the fresh drawings  being presented by the Naxxar Local Council as they adversely affect the Business Operators, whose businesses will no longer remain viable as a result of the pedestrianisation and the loss of the already limited amount of parking spaces available in the area.

The objections raised in our previous correspondence still stand and apply notwithstanding the submission of fresh plans and drawings by the Local Council. The following are additional and supplementary grounds of objection:

Design does not take into account the commercial activities in the area

The businesses currently operating in the area depend for their survival on a flow of traffic (for suppliers and customers) and parking bays (already very scarce in the Naxxar village core). In addition to this, whereas generally embellishment projects are beneficial to the local community, the Application (together with the relative designs) will, if approved, be detrimental to the business community simply for the sake of aesthetics.

The Application also includes the removal of vehicular access in Toni Bajjada Square. This will result in the negative to the commercial activity in the area.

Indeed there are ways and means of reaching a compromise in any design (i.e. embellishment of the area whilst at the same time minimising the impact on the business community). Unfortunately the Application does not even attempt to strike any sort of balance. Just as an example the plans do not contemplate supply routes for commercial outlets. How can a retail business survive if suppliers of goods/materials do not have any access to it?  Furthermore, the removal of parking spaces means that customers/clients will seek to acquire goods/services elsewhere where it would be easier to park.

These problems are obvious and it is very unfortunate that the Local Council and its architects never approached the GRTU and the local business community at design stage to work around such obvious issues. In our view this is incorrect and grossly unfair especially since the GRTU and the business community got to know about the Application only when this was submitted to MEPA.

Dangerous and impractical flow of traffic

An obvious example of how the proposed traffic flows will have a negative effect and cause danger and congestion can be found in the proposed corner between Castro Street and Marquis Scicluna Street. Now one must also take into consideration the new public transport system with its new buses much larger than the previous buses, which makes it more difficult for the traffic to maneuver in such a restricted space.

If the Application is approved it will be next to impossible for a vehicle (even a small one) to make a right turning. The danger in this area is further highlighted by the fact that children attend catechism classes in Castro Street (which is already extremely narrow and without pavements).

In conclusion GRTU urged MEPS to see through the issue and take the necessary action as in our view the application will lead to several negative effects which should in no way be encouraged through the issuing of the said permit.

All works will in the first phase effect only the lower part of Valetta so traffic circulation will not be affected – The Valletta Local Council together with the GRTU held further meetings in order to ensure that the upgrading of St Paul's street happens with the least impact to residents, to the business community and to the visitors of the city.

GRTU's communication with the Local Council has to our satisfaction improved and we aim to maintain this communication and collaboration and further improve it for the benefit of all.

An agreement was reached on a modus operandi which will allow the works to occur whilst ensuring that both access and parking availability is preserved. In fact, the contractor was instructed to work on a block at a time in order to keep parking losses to an absolute minimum. The traffic management plan was discussed and agreed upon as well.

Even though the imminent works focus on St Paul's street, the resurfacing of adjacent streets such as St Nicholas Street, Old Hospital Street, and North street were also discussed.

All the details will be published in the coming days through a press conference. Residents or shop owners in the streets mentioned above should inform the Valletta Local Council through a written note if they think they will be affected by the said works so that due consideration is taken about each case.

Malta Today‘s story on Green MT published last Sunday is sheer fabrication. It has not an iota of fact hanging to it. It's a bucket of bile and nothing else. Leo Brincat made a terrible misjudgment highlighting it. If Green MT has a problem, it is one of excess supply of recyclable material collected far beyond what Green MT members (and not Green MT itself) need to be able to qualify for an Eco-contribution refund. Why should a Scheme which is over supplied have to inflate the supply figures?

It even escapes logic. And why should a Scheme which is not-for-profit and is not owned by any private shareholders and is committed to distribute any positive balance back to participating members and to the community, be even remotely interested in committing any wrong-doing or participate in any malfeasance let alone "fraud" as Leo Brincat cheekily states?

The Directors of Green MT do not own the company. They hold their tenure of Office as nominees of the GRTU National Executive. Why should these gentlemen on a temporary lease as directors act in any way unethically when all is on record and subject to scrutiny. This is what Leo Brincat misses completely. He had an easy task if he was genuine and had any queries. He only had to call the Chairman or the CEO of Green MT and he would have been shown all the invoices, reports, minutes, audits and certificates to prove that all that was being insinuated is absolutely false.

Indeed it is strange that some Mayors said what they said as a basis for the Malta Today story as at that time so many discussions were going on involving also the Association of Local Council that it is inconceivable that any mayor did not know that there was a cut-off date from which the Local Government Department did not pay their contractor and that Green MT was taking over the payments in 22 Localities. This was not a GRTU issue but an issue of the Local Councils and the Department. Green MT did not go out with its own contractor but used the contractor paid by the Local Council for the traditional waste collection service. How is it possible that the Mayors knew that the new grey bag collection service was being done and that they themselves and the Department were not paying for it and that no one else was paying for it? They know very well that contractors are not the type that loves working for free. And there was no one else really ready to pay except Green MT as Green Pak come in on this kind of service only later and begrudgingly after it was forced upon them by a change of the law instigated by Green MT. What interest did Green MT have of working in districts that were being instigated not to contract Green MT when Green MT was inundated with requests from the majority of Councils?

The story from head to tail is one cheap journalistic lollypop ready for a born yesterday politician to lick. That is why GRTU was honestly shocked when they saw the Leo Brincat parade. What nonsense!

Leo Brincat always had excellent relationships with GRTU. Why ruin it all by blasting incredulous inventions and putting himself in serious legal proceedings situation. The question is really "who's behind it all". GRTU knows Malta Today and know the vitriol Saviour Balzan and Roger Degorgio have for GRTU, unexplainable, but its there, and like many others in Malta the GRTU leadership learned to live with it as the people of Xaghjra learned for years to live with the stench next door. But Leo Brincat is normally well behaved. So the question GRTU asks is "Who will profit if Green MT decides to withdraw and leave it all to others. It is GRTU's choice after all. GRTU does not profit from the tremendous work involved in managing Malta's largest waste-management scheme. In organizing this Scheme on a not-for-profit basis GRTU has effectively reduced the charges to the 1200 members (last count, as it keeps growing every week) and is committed to give a lot of free services to the community, but all this could have gone to fatten the pockets of private entrepreneurs, why not, who would have gone in it for a profit if GRTU did not decide to create this one big collective effort on behalf of the business community. GRTU is in no doubt that there are people out there who will do anything to kill "not-for-profit" initiatives, when so much profit could be made. "This is the whole point." Joe Attard CEO of Green MT says. Normally projects like this are operated by co-operatives or voluntary organizations of people poorly versed in business and therefore the records show that many not-for-profit schemes fail so there is little enthusiasm for them. Indeed that's what even our colleagues from Chamber of Commerce and from the then FOI believed when GRTU came up with the idea to organize a Scheme with all three business chambers joining forces. The three bodies had already created UNIGREEN a joint-chamber effort to do exactly what Green MT is doing today. Our colleagues however literally had cold feet seeing the dimension the Scheme had to grow to really meet the terrible void that existed on the waste-management scene in Malta and how stringent and tight the rules were and how difficult it would all be to balance the accounts given the tremendous bureaucratic hurdles that the Scheme would have to go through to be founded on strong grounds.

This is the story. GRTU and Green MT through sheer determination and incredible amount of work and effort made a success of a Scheme that many believed was a non-starter. And for those with a stomach full of bile, success is a dirty word. There are people out there who are green with jealousy seeing that a business organization like GRTU can go all out to organize and manage professionally a National Scheme that provides a low cost service to the business community and respond to the nation's call for action on the environment front and make a success of it. GRTU is a true best practice exercise that GRTU and all those that work in and with Green MT are proud of. The hurdles are still tremendous and the attacks will remain but the Green MT is one positive story to tell.

Leo Brincat's miserable performance could have been avoided. The Labour Party is completely misinformed on what Green MT does and the way it operates. It is incredible that Labour's approach to Waste Management is based on such poor knowledge of the realities and practicalities of running Schemes and ensuring that the community is served. Rather than encouraging collective business community efforts like Green MT the Labour Party seems to be going out to smash rather than to support. GRTU says this with regret as for so many years the relationships with the front bench of Labour has always been excellent and till today so many of the leading Labour spokesmen approach GRTU for information and explanation. This is how it should be and how Leo Brincat ought to have behaved. An investigation without even the flimsiest of evidence that can at least appear as grounds for any investigation?

GRTU honestly hopes that Mario Demarco has been misquoted as we cannot believe that anybody in Government is now doubting the integrity of all the people that have worked so hard to get the tax exemption and refund mechanism going and those who have successfully worked so hard to get the national waste management and compliance scheme going. But we say it load and clear: Green MT and GRTU are not afraid of any investigation. Indeed the sooner the better so all would know what stomach one needs to invent such stories. GRTU and Green MT's records, invoices, payments records, independent auditors reports, audit trails and written instructions from the authorities, correspondence with Local Councils, contracts and all relevant licenses to operate are all in order and there is nothing to hide.

But there's a sinister and sad message here. The message the people behind the new politics who are running the show, using people like Leo Brincat, is loud and clear: dealing with the elected government of this country puts your enterprise in the limelight, it's bad for your business, and you become a target.

According to the "Think Small First" principle contained in the Small Business Act, all legislative initiatives must be designed starting from the needs and characteristics of small businesses at the very early stages of policy making, in order to make legislation more SME friendly. Unfortunately, this principle is far from being commonplace, while we believe that it should be at the centre of the regulatory process at all levels: European, national, regional and local.

The "Think Small First" principle can lead to a transparent and simple regulatory environment, at European and national level. In an ideal case, necessary regulations should be designed right from the beginning in a way that also small enterprises can implement them easily and efficiently without any competitive disadvantage.

This principle should be used consistently and with more ambition throughout the whole regulatory and implementing process. Applying this principle will reduce the need for exemptions for SMEs and will dramatically ease administrative burdens. The principle is extremely important but the result is heavily depending on how it is interpreted in the regulatory or implementing situation. Various tools can be used to make sure that all new and revised rules abide to the "Think Small First" principle. For instance, the consultation of representative business organisations and impact assessments can be of use.

Consultation must be compulsorily addressed to SME organisations, which are still inappropriately excluded or improperly consulted even in countries where governments make daily reference to the importance of SMEs for their economies. The same shortcoming must be redressed in the EU, with the unjustified exclusion of SME sectorial organisations from the EU Sectoral Social Dialogue.

GRTU attaches great importance to effective and independent impact assessments to be carried out prior to all legislative initiatives. Impact assessments, together with Stakeholder Consultation, are key pillars of the "Think Small First" principle of the Small Business Act and a priority not only for enterprises, but also for the European Council and Parliament, which have insisted on their importance in several occasions. The European Commission should provide systematic, specific, real and independent impact assessments for SMEs, taking into account the different categories.

While the principle of impact assessment seems to be somewhat well established, we believe that more must be done on how to put this principle into practice: impact assessments should be drafted for any piece of legislation. Stakeholders should be involved from the very early stages and the European Commission should involve external experts in the process to ensure a rigorous, objective and neutral quantification of the costs and benefits for end users.