Pelting with eggs

The debate on defense policy requires to be dealt with much more seriously than through pelting Prime Minister Robert Abela with eggs, as happened last Tuesday during a political activity at Vittoriosa.     

Whether we like it or not, 23 out of the 27 EU member states are members of NATO. Malta, Ireland, Austria and Cyprus are the exceptions. (Cyprus had its NATO membership application vetoed by Turkey.) It is a politically difficult situation which requires a tightrope walking skill. It is never going to be easy with the European defense industry leaders breathing down the neck of the EU leadership.

The defense industry, including that within the European Union itself, is undoubtedly lobbying intensively on a continuous basis. An EU defense budget running into several billion euros would definitely be in their interest! In 2023 the EU’s military spending reached a record €230 billion.

It is inevitable that in view of the Russian aggression in Ukraine the defense debate intensifies during the current EU Parliament electoral campaign.

One of the points raised by the outgoing President of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen is on whether it is appropriate to have an EU Commissioner entrusted exclusively with defense policy in the next Commission later this year. The European People’s Party (EPP) wants to substitute the top EU diplomatic job with a defense Commissioner post.

Defense, in all its aspects, is a matter reserved for the individual European Member states in terms of the EU treaties. I would have expected government spokespersons to be clear on this point. Unfortunately, they have been completely silent, at least on a public level. This is not on. It is not acceptable. The sooner it is rectified the better.

This is not a matter which can be relegated to the diplomatic level. It has to be taken up forcefully: positions taken must be clear publicly.  The warmongering on a European level must be brought to order the soonest.

On a local level, the debate on defense policy is completely absent, except for the partisan bickering from time to time. This has intensified in the past weeks.

Unfortunately, we have already had proposals by the Bavarian Christan Democrat leader of EPP, Manfred Weber, that the EU should invest in nuclear deterrence.  Last January, Politico reported that this Bavarian political outburst was delivered in the context of the perceived consequences of Donald Trump’s threats on the weakening of NATO, if he is re-elected to the Presidency of the United States of America later this year. Irrespective of the motivation it should be clear even at this stage that such proposals are unacceptable. A neutral Malta should have made her voice heard ages ago! Yet silence prevails.

Notwithstanding all the bickering on the EU Council’s final statement last week, this matter has been ignored. The Prime Minister then felt the need to seek the advice of the State Advocate in order to ensure that Malta’s neutral status is respected in the commitments made in the final statement. Yet we are not yet aware as to whether the proposal to create a standalone defense portfolio in the next Commission has yet been sent to the State Advocate for his advice.

The silence of the Opposition PN on the matter is also deafening, considering that the defense proposals on EU defense Commissioner as well as the proposal on an EU nuclear deterrence are being made by the European People’s Party of which it forms part.

Pelting with eggs is no substitute for the national political debate on defense matters. It is in our interest to wake up and smell the coffee.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 31 March 2024

The President of the Republic: a flicker of hope

The term of office of current President of the Republic George Vella will expire in the first days of April. His successor, the new President, will, for the first time require the consent of a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives in order to be elected. This, in practice, means that both Government and Opposition must be in agreement for such an appointment to be approved.

Talks between government and opposition are known to have commenced. They are confidential in nature and as such little is known as to how they have proceeded to date. All that is known is that the Opposition Parliamentary group has drawn a significant red line: it will not support any candidate for the Presidency of the Republic if such candidate was a member of the Cabinet of Ministers led by Joseph Muscat and censored by the public inquiry into the circumstances leading to the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia.

The red line drawn by the Opposition is significant. It is not known how government ranks have reacted to it, as, so far, no public statement has been made on the manner in which the talks between the Labour led government and the PN Opposition are progressing. 

The veil of confidentiality is reasonable, but at some point, it must and will inevitably be lifted in order to enable the public debate on the Presidency to proceed.

At the time of writing Prime Minister Robert Abela is being quoted as emphasizing that he is “hopeful” that an agreement will be arrived at, even at this late hour. It is being stated that ongoing talks are constructive, this giving rise to a possibly positive outcome by the early April deadline. The first indication of the name of a possible agreed nominee is also available at the time of writing.

The two-thirds hurdle which must be overcome in order to elect a President of the Republic, once every five years, has a specific aim: that of ensuring that the selected person has as wide an acceptance as possible. He or she must be able to bridge the political divide. This must be done on a continuous basis.

There have been a countless number of instances in the past when the political parties in Parliament have succeeded in overcoming partisan squabbling and reached agreement on many a sensitive matter. Including the appointment of a Head of State. Then it was good politics to do so. Now it is also a must!

The art of compromise is good politics which, unfortunately, is not sufficiently mastered by many in the political world. It does not mean giving up any of your views, values or beliefs. It rather signifies that you also see the good in what others do and factor it in what you do or say. It is a point that is often sadly missed in this polarized society which we call home!

I still fail to understand why, for example, the Opposition in Parliament failed to accept former Chief Justice Joseph Azzopardi as Commissioner for Standards in Public Life. I had then stated that the Opposition had the right to block the proposed appointment, but it also had the duty to give reasonable explanations for doing so. It failed to give reasonable explanations, because none, in my view, existed. Playing party politics with our institutions is not on.

The rest is now history, except, that, in my opinion, Joseph Azzopardi has proven himself to be a good choice as Commissioner for Standards in Public Life. Both PN and Labour, unfortunately, acted irrationally in this matter. The PN was intransigent while Labour over-reacted.

It is appropriate that both Government and Opposition learn lessons from their past mistakes. It is in the interest of the country that they do this the soonest possible.

The fact that talks are proceeding constructively, maybe, is an indicator that, possibly, there is still some flickering hope for this country. We can only wait and hold our breath: possibly for not too long!

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 24 March 2024

The climate risks we face

The first ever European climate risk assessment carried out by the European Environment Agency (EEA) has concluded that Europe is unprepared for what lies in store.

The year 2023 was the warmest year ever. The global average temperature during 2023 has surpassed the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius set in the Paris agreement at the 2015 Climate Summit.

Europe is the fastest warming continent. The situation in Southern Europe is even worse. It will face considerably reduced rainfall and more severe droughts.

At this point, none of this is however news. It is already the present. The future may, however, be even worse than that.

In a 425-page report we are told that climate change is a multiplier of risks: existing risks will be aggravated. Climate risks are growing much faster than our preparedness. We are being extremely slow in developing and implementing climate change adaptation strategies.

36 major climate risks for Europe have been identified. They are grouped in five clusters, namely, ecosystems, food, health, infrastructure, and the economy/finance.  

The key findings of this first European climate risk assessment, which I quote verbatim from the EEA report, are:

“Ecosystems: climate change is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation in Europe. Among climate risks related to ecosystems, risks to coastal and marine ecosystems have the highest severity in the current period as well as the greatest urgency to act.

Food: Europe faces multiple challenges to food production and food security, including reducing its environmental impact. Crop production is already facing substantial climate risks in Europe as a whole, and critical risk levels in Southern Europe.

Health: climate change poses major risks to human health systems. Risks related to heat are already at critical levels in southern Europe.

Infrastructure: extreme weather events are posing increasing risks to the built environment and infrastructure in Europe, and the services they provide. Such events can disrupt essential services, including energy supply, water supply and transport networks.

Economy and finance: the European financial system faces critical risks from the impacts of climate change, both within Europe and abroad. Serious sector- and region-specific risks to Europe could catalyse a systemic financial shock.” (page 264: para 18.6 of the report)

This is a wakeup call of the highest order. The European continent is unprepared for the growing extremes of climate. Yet senior politicians at an EU level are more interested in sabotaging specific initiatives which seek to bridge the gap in climate change preparedness. The recent debate (and voting patterns) on the regulatory framework for the restoration of nature is a case in point.

The recent Dutch farmers’ revolt which has shaken the Netherlands’ body politic has its origin in the difficulties encountered in implementing the Nitrates Directive. It has however spread to other regions, motivated by the industrial agricultural lobby’s determination to sabotage the EU Green Deal.

In Germany the centre-right CDU-CSU have just launched their joint EU Parliament electoral manifesto with a pledge to reverse the controversial phase-out of the internal combustion engine. A definite commitment to water-down the EU Green Deal. The CDU-CSU leading candidate is the same person piloting the EU Green Deal, Ursula von der Leyen.

With these attitudes it is inevitable that our preparedness for the climate risks we face will get even worse. This is the future we face. It keeps getting worse until those that matter come to their senses.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 17 March 2024

Unbridled Development: on whose side is the state?

After years of supporting unbridled development the Labour Party in government is trying to signal that, after all, it is on the side of the vulnerable, those who are continuously trampled by developers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As a result of the Sofia inquiry report, the BCA (Building and Construction Authority), on government’s instructions, issued a call for architects (and lawyers) to offer their services to assist those third parties impacted by development.

The current initiative is a positive step forward but, in my opinion, it is insufficient as it subjects the available assistance to instructions from the BCA. It is the BCA which decides whether and to what extent professional assistance is required.

A 13-page document was issued by the BCA on March 9, entitled “Expression of Interest. Invitation for the Provision of Periti to provide professional assistance to third parties”.

The service to be provided and paid for by BCA shall presumably cover advice relative to a description of the development, as well as the method statements submitted by the developer’s advisors. It will also cover inspections and the required estimates in the eventuality of damage sustained as a result of the development under consideration.

It is however not clear whether taking the BCA itself to task is covered by the said expression of interest. I am saying this because the professional service to be provided is subject to “the specific administrative instructions of the authority” as per paragraph 1.4 of the BCA expression of interest document.  This signifies that the BCA itself must authorize, for example, the seeking of advice to contest the way in which the BCA itself operates as well as to how it decides on specific cases.

This is just one aspect of the problems to be faced. The issues that should have been addressed are much wider and deeper than what is being acknowledged by the conditions of the expression of interest document.

Consider, for example, ground floor properties forming part of a two-storey development originally approved many years ago. When the existing development at first floor (and the overlying airspace) is purchased by developers with the intent to redevelop as a block of flats, it is hell for the ground floor residents. All sorts of pressures are resorted to in order to ensure that, as far as possible, residents acquiesce and shut up.

In such cases the ground/foundation condition reports being submitted leave much to be desired. It is logical that residents in ground-floor properties are reluctant to have their properties subjected to tests and sample boreholes in order that the prevalent geological conditions are identified. In the absence of this information, developers and their advisors are taking short cuts and making several. at times, incorrect assumptions as to the prevalent geological conditions on site. This is being done in order to give a clean bill of health to the proposed development.

Faced with such a situation some succumb to pressure from developers and consider moving out of their homes as a result, providing the desired carte blanche for the developers.

Is this fair? Yet this is what will eventually happen in a number of cases. In fact, it is already happening.

This is not a matter which can be adequately dealt with by the BCA after the development permit has been issued by the Planning Authority. It must be dealt with before the planning application is even submitted. Only then can one safely say that the legislator and the relative authorities are on the side of the downtrodden.

In simple words, it is much better to avoid the creation of a mess then having to deal with the not so pleasant consequences. This is how the vulnerable can be served.

Published in Times of Malta: Sunday 17 March 2024

Precarious working conditions and digital platform work

It’s been more than two years since the death of Ajay Shrestha, Nepalese digital platform food courier, at Marsa in a traffic accident. After his death, writing in these columns about digital platform food couriers I have discussed whether their work conditions could be more described as digital slave labour (TMIS: Platform work: digital slave labour? 7 August 2022).

They have now been joined by digital platform cab-drivers.

Towards the end of February, Y-plate drivers took part in a public demonstration to effectively emphasise that digital platform work does not pay adequately. Their clear message was that the income that they have left after taking into consideration expenses and commissions retained by the digital platform management is peanuts, not sufficient for living.

The problem of precarious working conditions of digital platform workers is not limited to Malta. In fact, the European Union is currently debating a directive on the working conditions of digital platform workers. The impact assessment on the proposed EU Directive published by the EU Commission three years ago had identified that a number of those working through digital platforms faced poor working conditions and in particular inadequate access to social protection.

From what has been publicly stated by local digital platform workers it is clear that they are continuously facing precarious working conditions. Precarious meaning uncertainty and consequently socially unsafe.

In the past months it was the turn of the food couriers. It is now the turn of the cab drivers to publicly explain their plight.

On food couriers we had learnt that the food courier platform operators, in addition to the delivery charges, they are also paid substantial commissions from the food outlets which they serve. Commissions which do not end up in the pockets of the food couriers but in the bank accounts of the digital platform operators!

Digital platform cab drivers have informed us that the rate charged to consumers does not reflect their substantial expenses, ranging from car insurance to social insurance. To which one must add the recent introduction of various Transport Malta conditions in order to renew their Y-plate licences.

Why should we keep tolerating this modern digital slave labour? Some form of basic social regulation of the sector is long overdue. These working men and women are providing us with a service through which we should ensure they should be earning a decent living.

Digital platform workers are falsely classified as self-employed persons. As a result of this misclassification of their employment status they tend to lose various social rights and protections. These include rights relative to working time, minimum wage (including the statutory bonus payable in June and December), paid annual leave, paid sick leave, parental leave and occupational health and safety protection.

The “attractive” low rates which digital platforms charge for their services are generally reflective of all this. In the 21^st century this is not acceptable. The way forward requires a regulatory intervention of the state to ensure that digital platform operators act decently and move away from precarious working conditions.

We owe it to the digital platform workers providing us with a service.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 10 March 2024

Blood on their hands

When speaking on the report of the public inquiry into the circumstances which led to the death of Jean Paul Sofia, Robert Abela, the Prime Minister, emphasised that he expected that those who were singled out in the said report are to shoulder their responsibility. He also established a deadline by which he expected that they submit their resignation.

Some have been singled out by name. Others through membership of decision taking bodies whose actions were censored by the Board of Inquiry. In fact, it adds up to more than has been pinpointed by the Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, we were informed that David Xuereb has resigned his Chairmanship of the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA), Peter Borg has resigned from Deputy Chairman of Malta Enterprise. In addition Victor Carachi and Paul Abela have resigned from the Malta Enterprise Investment Committee and the Committee itself has been abolished.

We were also informed that after the publication of the Inquiry’s report, Kevin Camilleri, the Head of the micro-enterprise unit of Malta Enterprise was dismissed from his post.

The report of the inquiry identified a multitude of persons, executives and institutions who in one way or another contributed to the developing mess which we call the building industry. Each one of them who turned a blind eye, or was absent from his post at crucial moments, or took decisions without a proper consideration of its implications should shoulder his/her responsibilities and resign.

I would go one further step: it is not enough to resign from the posts subject to the inquiry’s scrutiny. Each one of them should resign from all their public postings.

The report of the public inquiry, however went much further than identifying those involved and analysing in depth their operations. It did this in view of the fact that all these appointees where entrusted to ensure that the state shoulders adequately its responsibilities through a focused regulation of the industry.  

Yet we got to know that Jobs Plus has more members on its Board than it has inspectors. Also, we got confirmation that enforcement is weak everywhere, right through the building industry.

The Board of Inquiry has gone through all of the operations and identified those accountable. At the end of the day, when the dust has settled, however, the buck stops on the desk of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet of Ministers. 

The next step is to ask the members of the executive whether they ever sought to ensure that the public officers, executives and other appointees which they entrusted to regulate the building industry carried adequately their assignment. We know, not just through the inquiry’s report, that the executives in charge of the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA) have repeatedly requested funding to build up their inspectorate as well as their enforcement capacity. It was not forthcoming. Plans for beefing up the organisations remained a paper exercise.

Are not the respective Ministers accountable for this?

Isn’t Minister Stefan Zrinzo-Azzopardi, until recently politically responsible for the building industry, responsible for the current state of the BCA? In particular for changing without justification its senior executive team in a most critical of times?

Minister Silvio Schembri and Minister Miriam Dalli were at different times responsible for Malta Enterprise and its appendages. At no point in time did they indicate an interest in the manner of operation of the Malta Enterprise Investment Committee and the extent to which public funds were properly used and accounted for. The manner in which the decision relative to the Corradino site was arrived at  is indicative that possibly there could be much more. It is logical to assume that proper oversight is lacking as such blatant irresponsible decisions would not otherwise crop up out of the blue. 

The inquiry, at the end of the day is about the responsibility of the state to regulate the building industry. A responsibility which the state of Malta has failed to live up to. Robert Abela and his team at Castille Place are at the end of the day accountable for this failure. He does not need deadlines to own up to this failure.

Prime Minister Robert Abela tried to avoid all this by forcefully obstructing the commencement of the public inquiry. He knew, generally, what the conclusions would be, as the problems addressed by the inquiry have been with us for ages, ignored continuously. It is a failure in governance, a failure in management of the state of its very basic responsibilities.

Isn’t it about time that Abela and his team at least apologise to the nation for their incompetence? As a result of this, they have blood on their hands.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 3 March 2024