Profitti għas-settur privat, riskji u kontijiet għall Gvern!

Nhar it-Tnejn li għadda l-Parlament iddiskuta s-sentenza mogħtija mill-Imħallef Francesco Depasquale fuq il-konċessjoni dwar tlett isptarijiet tal-Gvern lill-Vitals Global Healthcare liema konċessjoni eventwalment għaddiet għand Steward Health Care. Id-deċiżjoni li ngħatat hi kontra l-Prim Ministru bħala kap tal-Eżekuttiv, kif ukoll kontra l-Avukat Ġenerali, kumpaniji diversi mill-grupp kummerċjali ta’ Steward Health Care u xi korpi pubbliċi u r-rappresentanti tagħhom.

Din hi kawża li ppreżenta Adrian Delia meta kien għadu Kap tal-Opposizzjoni. Il-parti kbira tad-diskussjoni parlamentari dwar din is-sentenza iffukat fuq nuqqas ta’ governanza tajba, dwar tmexija ħażina u dwar frodi flimkien mal- korruzzjoni, assoċjati ma’ din il-konċessjoni sa mit-tnissil tagħha.

Dan kollu joħroġ ċar mis-sentenza tal-Qorti tal-ġimgħa l-oħra. Imma għal min kien attent, dan kien diġa jidher ċar fiż-żewġ rapporti dwar din il-konċessjoni tal-isptarijiet, rapporti li ħareġ l-Awditur Ġenerali f’Lulju 2020 u f’Diċembru 2021. Is-sentenza tal-Qorti qed issaħħaħ u tirrinforza l-konklużjonijiet li wasal għalihom l-Awditur Ġenerali.

Niftakru li f’Lulju 2020 l-Awditur Ġenerali kien ippubblika l-ewwel rapport tiegħu, rapport li hu mifrux fuq iktar minn 200 paġna u li kien jiffoka fuq il-proċess tal-offerti għall-konċessjoni dwar l-isptarijiet. Dan kien supplimentat b’addendum ta’ 20 paġna oħra. Iktar tard f’Diċembru 2021 l-Awditur Ġenerali kien ippubblika it-tieni rapport tiegħu b’467 paġna, li kien jiffoka fuq il-qafas kuntrattwali tal-konċessjoni u kif dan ġie mħaddem.

L-Awditur Ġenerali kien ikkonkluda fir-rapporti tiegħu li l-preparazzjoni li wettaq il-Gvern in konnessjoni mal-konċessjoni kienet waħda superfiċjali, u li meta ħareġ is-sejħa għall-offerti kien fil-fatt diġa ftiehem u fuq kollox lill-Kabinett bosta drabi kien iħallieh fil-għama. Anke l-Ministru tal-Finanzi kien imwarrab, qiesu kien qiegħed hemm għalxejn!

Punt interessati li isemmi l-Awditur Ġenerali hu li Vitals Global Healthcare ippreżentaw garanzija bankarja mill-Bank of India li kienet datata 13 ta’ Marzu 2015, ħmistax-il ġurnata qabel ma fil-fatt ħarġet is-sejħa għall-offerti. Dan sar għax il-ftehim kien diġa sar u s-sejħa li ħarġet għall-offerti kienet waħda finta! A bażi ta’ dan, l-Awditur Ġenerali kien tal-fehma li Vitals Global Healthcare kellhom ikunu skwalifikati milli jippartiċipaw fis-sejħa għall-offert għall-konċessjoni dwar l-isptarijiet.

Dan hu kollu importanti u separatament wassal għal konklużjonijiet li issa wasal għalihom ukoll l-Imħallef Depasquale fis-sentenza li qed nitkellmu dwarha. Ifisser li Gvern serju, kieku ried, seta jaġixxi. Kellu biżżejjed informazzjoni biex jibgħat lil Steward Health Care isaqqu. Imma b’mod ċar dan ma setax jagħmlu għax il-Gvern kien parti integrali mill-ħadma li saret.

Imma hemm affarijiet oħra, daqstant importanti, ta’ natura fundamentali u li huma presentment skartati mid-diskussjoni pubblika. Kemm jagħmel sens li qasam sensittiv bħas-saħħa ikollu parti sostanzjali minnu taħt kontroll kważi assolut tas-settur privat. Jagħmel sens il-Public-Private Partnership fil-qasam tas-saħħa?

Din hi mistoqsija li hi kompletament skartata fid-dibattitu pubbliku li sar u li għadu għaddej. Hi mistoqsija fundamentali li mit-tweġiba għaliha tista’ toħroġ il-fasla ta’ kif is-settur privat jista’ jikkontribwixxi u jipparteċipa mingħajr ma jikkontrolla: kif kulħadd jitħallas ta’ xogħolu imma li ħadd ma jitħalla jberbaq il-ġid tal-pajjiż.

L-esperjenza li għandna f’dan il-pajjiz dwar l-involviment tas-settur privat f’dawn it-tip ta’ proġetti hi waħda ta’ problemi kbar: problema ta’ deċiżjonijiet ħziena u ta’ abbuż ta’ poter, kif ukoll suspetti kbar ta’ frodi u korruzzjoni. Dan b’referenza kemm għal din il-konċessjoni tal-isptarijiet, il-progett tal-enerġija f’Delimara u anke fil-progett ta’ San Vinċenz f’Ħal-Luqa. F’kull kaz hemm rapporti voluminużi tal-Awditur Ġenerali li jispjegaw dettaljatatment it-taħwid li ġie iġġenerat mill-Gvern immexxi mill-Partit Laburista wara l-2013.

Huwa mudell ekonomiku fallut li jarmi l-assi pubbliċi. Mudell li intuża ukoll f’ċirkustanzi oħra bħall-bejgħ tal-art f’Pembroke bir-ribass biex ikun iffavoreġġat il-proġett spekulattiv tal-Grupp dB.  Il-profitti li jirriżultaw mill-ispekulazzjoni, sfortunatament għandhom prijorità fuq il-ġid komuni għal dan il-Gvern.

Hu ċar li jekk irridu l-involviment tas-settur privat fi proġetti pubbliċi, dan l-involviment għandu jkun regolat sewwa u din ir-regolamentazzjoni għandha tkun infurzat biex tkun assigurata governanza tajba mill-bidu nett, mill-ewwel ideat sat-twettieq ta’ proġetti ta’ din ix-xorta.  S’issa kollox qiegħed jitħalla jimxi għal riħu bil-konsegwenzi li qed naraw b’għajnejna u li qed insiru nafu bihom ftit ftit. Nuqqas ta’ regoli ċari li jkunu infurzati jwassal inevitabilment għal taħwid, għal frodi u għal korruzzjoni. Riżultat ta’ hekk ibati l-pajjiz kollu.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 5 ta’ Marzu 2023

Private profits public risks

On Monday Parliament discussed the decision delivered in Court by Judge Francesco Depasquale relative to the Government hospital concession awarded to Vitals Global Healthcare, eventually substituted by Steward Health Care. The decision delivered is against the Prime Minister as head of the Executive, as well as the Attorney General, various companies in the Steward Health Care Group and a number of quangos and their representatives.

This Court Case was presented by Adrian Delia when he was Leader of the Opposition. The major part of the Parliamentary discussion has focused on bad governance, fraud and corruption which were all associated with the hospital concession process since its inception.

All this emanates from the Court decision delivered last week. However, those who observe the political scene attentively would be undoubtedly aware that all this was already evident in two reports published by the Auditor General on this hospital concession: the first one published in July 2020 and the second one in December 2021. The Court’s decision, in fact, reinforces the Auditor General’s conclusions.

We do clearly remember that in July 2020 the Auditor General had published a first report running into over 200 pages focusing on the hospital concession tendering process. This was followed by an addendum and later, in December 2021 the Auditor General published a second report, 467 pages long, which reviewed the contractual framework of the hospital concession.

In his reports the Auditor General concluded that the preparatory work carried out by the public sector in relation to the hospital concession was very superficial. The Auditor General’s reports also identified that even before the request for proposals was published Government had already concluded on awarding Vitals Global Healthcare the hospitals concession! Cabinet and even the Finance Minister were generally kept in the dark. 

The Auditor General, in his investigations, found a bank guarantee presented by Vitals Global Healthcare. It was issued by the Bank of India on the 13 March 2015, a fortnight before the request for proposals was even published. This clearly established that the agreement was already sealed even before the public request for proposals had been published. The Auditor General had clearly identified this as a definite proof of collusion. On this basis, the Auditor General had in fact expressed a strongly worded opinion that Vitals Global Healthcare should have been disqualified from participating in the request for proposals relative to the hospitals’ concession.

All this is of paramount importance. Way back in 2020/21 it had led to the Auditor General conclusions which have now been confirmed by Mr Justice Depasquale in the decision delivered last week. This means that government should and could have acted then: it had sufficient information to send Steward Health Care packing. However very clearly it could not act as it was part and parcel of the deceit at hand.

There are however further matters, just as important as the above, which the current debate unfortunately avoids. We should ask: does it make sense for a sector as sensitive as health to be controlled in this manner by the private sector? Does a public-private partnership in the health sector make sense?

These questions are being ignored in the public debate currently at hand. These questions are of a fundamental nature as the replies thereto could identify the manner as to how the private sector can be involved without having a controlling interest and how all those involved can be fairly remunerated without squandering public funds.

The local accumulated experience resulting from this kind of projects is very problematic: we are continuously faced with incorrect decisions, abusive decision-taking as well as substantial suspicions of fraud and corruption. This is being stated with reference not just to this hospital concession but also to the energy deal at the Delimara Power Station and the project at the Luqa elderly residence: St Vincent de Paul. In each case the Auditor General has produced voluminous reports detailing the mayhem generated by the post 2013 Labour government.

It is a failed economic model which discounts public goods. It has also been applied in other sectors: a case in point being the Pembroke land “sold” at throwaway prices in favour of the speculative project of the dB Group. Speculative profit is unfortunately being continuously prioritised over the common good by the present government.

It is crystal clear that if we want the private sector involved in public projects its involvement must be regulated, and the said regulatory regime must be adequately enforced in order to ensure good governance throughout, from inception right through to implementation. So far it is a free for all: the consequences are for all to see.  A lack of clear rules and their enforcement inevitably leads to confusion, fraud and corruption. The whole country, as a result, has to pay the consequences.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 5 March 2023

Fir-Repubblika tal-Banana

Meta l-mexxej Laburista Robert Abela indirizza lill-partitarji fil-Każin Laburista ta’ Birkirkara, nhar il-Ħadd li għadda, kellu raġun jilmenta li s-sentenzi f’kawżi kriminali, bosta drabi jidhru baxxi jew laxki. Xi drabi qed jingħata l-messaġġ li qiesu ma ġara xejn. Il-Prim Ministru għandu bosta postijiet iktar addattati fejn jista’ jwassal il-preokkupazzjoni tiegħu dwar il-ħtieġa ta’ politika iktar addattata dwar is-sentenzi li qed jingħataw mill-Qrati.

Seta ġibed l-attenzjoni tal-President tar-Repubblika biex il-materja tkun ikkunsidrata fil-Kummissjoni għall-Amministrazzjoni tal-Ġustizzja. Seta qajjem il-materja f’laqgħa formali mal-Prim Imħallef. Seta ukoll illeġisla biex inaqqas il-flessibilità li għandha l-Qorti meta tapplika l-pieni li hemm fil-liġi. Fil-fatt kellu għad-disposizzjoni tiegħu bosta għodda jew mezzi biex jasal għall-bidla mixtieqa. Imma li joqgħod ipeċlaq fil-każin laburista ta’ B’Kara bil-prietka ta’ nhar ta’ Ħadd mhux wieħed minnhom.

F’Birkirkara Robert Abela tkellem ukoll dwar il-kunflitt ta’ interess li Membri Parlamentari li jipprattikaw il-liġi kriminali huma esposti għalih. Matul in-nofstanhar ta’ filgħodu b’abbiltà, dawn l-avukati, jiddefendu lill-klijenti tagħhom u jippreżentaw sottomissjonijiet quddiem il-Qrati dwar pieni baxxi jew tnaqqis fil-pieni inkella dwar sentenzi sospiżi.  Imbagħad, waranofsinnhar, emfasizza Robert Abela, dawn l-istess Membri Parlamentari jiġu fil-Parliament jargumentaw b’qawwa fuq il-perikli ta’ żieda fil-kriminalità.

Dwar dan għandu raġun. Imma din il-linja ta’ ħsieb ma tapplikax biss għall-avukati li jipprattikaw il-liġi kriminali.  Tapplika ukoll għal avukati fiċ-ċivil u fil-liġi kummerċjali kif ukoll għal membri parlamentari fi professjonijiet oħra kif kellna l-opportunità li naraw bosta drabi tul is-snin! Din hi esperjenza li diġà għaddejna minnha matul is-snin.

Il-Membri Parlamentari għandhom jiddedikaw il-ħin kollu tagħhom għall-ħidma parlamentari. M’għandux ikun possibli li Membri Parlamentari jibqgħu jagħmlu kwalunkwe xogħol ieħor, kemm jekk dan ikun imħallas kif ukoll jekk le. Bħala partit dan aħna ilna ngħiduh is-snin, għax nemmnu li fil-prattika hu l-uniku mod kif tista’ tindirizza u tnaqqas b’mod effettiv il-kunflitt ta’ interess ovvju li jirriżulta illi Membru tal-Parlament hu espost għalih fis-sistema tagħna kif inhi illum.

Robert Abela qal iktar minn hekk. Irrefera għad-diskursata li kellu ma’ Maġistrat dwar is-sentenzi baxxi li ħerġin mill-Qrati Kriminali. Il-Maġistrat, qal Abela, iddefendiet ruħha billi emfasizzat li s-sentenzi mogħtija qed jitbaxxew mill-Qorti tal-Appell, li fid-dawl ta’ sentenzi oħra ġja mogħtija qed tnaqqas sentenzi li jkunu ngħataw mill-Maġistrati.

Robert Abela żbalja meta ikkomunika direttament mal-Maġistrat. Żbalja iktar meta tkellem dwar dan fil-pubbliku għax b’hekk bagħat messaġġ żbaljat u inkwetanti li l-Qrati qed jirċievu ordnijiet diretti mingħand l-eżekuttiv. Dan fi kliem sempliċi hu ta’ theddida għall-indipendenza tal-ġudikatura.  Bħala avukat, bla dubju, Robert Abela jirrealizza li qabeż il-linja ta’ dak li hu tollerabbli mill-politiku f’soċjetà demokratika.

F’pajjiż demokratiku fejn is-saltna tad-dritt hi realtà mhux ħrafa, Robert Abela kien jirreżenja fi ftit siegħat minn x’ħin pubblikament ammetta  li hu għamel pressjoni fuq il-Maġistrat. Il-Maġistrat li min-naħa tagħha kompliet miegħu fid-diskussjoni s’issa, kienet tkun ġiet identifikata u dixxiplinata.

Imma, kif tafu, minn dan kollu, ma ġara xejn.

Nhar it-Tnejn fi stqarrija għall-istampa, jiena tlabt lill-President tar-Repubblika biex isejjaħ laqgħa urġenti tal-Kummissjoni għall-Amministrazzjoni tal-Ġustizzja biex din tkun tista’ tieħu l-passi neċessarja dwar dak li ġara.

S’issa għad ma ġara xejn. Forsi l-President kien imsiefer, inkella kien imħabbat b’xi attività dwar il-larinġ li nsibu fil-ġonna Presidenzjali ta’ Sant Anton.

Issa forsi jmiss iċ-ċelebrazzjoni tal-ġimgħa tal-banana fl-aġenda Presidenzjali. Bla dubju din tieħu prijorità fuq l-indipendenza tal-ġudikatura fir-Repubblika tal-Banana!

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 4 ta’ Frar 2023

In a Banana Republic

When Labour Leader Robert Abela addressed the party faithful at the Birkirkara Labour Party Club last Sunday, he was right to complain that the sentencing policy currently applied by the judiciary may at times appear as being too lenient. However, as Prime Minister he had other fora through which to convey his preoccupation and to emphasise the need of an up-to-date sentencing policy.

He could have drawn the attention of the President of the Republic in order that he may refer the matter for the consideration of the Commission for the Administration of Justice. He could have legitimately brought up the matter in a formal meeting with the Chief Justice. He could also legislate in order to restrict the current flexibility which the Courts have when applying the law. In fact, he has at his disposal various tools to bring about the change he spoke about: pontificating at the Birkirkara Labour Party Club through a Sunday political sermon is not one of these tools.

At Birkirkara Robert Abela also spoke on the conflict of interest which Members of Parliament who are practising criminal lawyers are continuously exposed to. They ably defend their clients during the morning in Court pleading in favour of minimal sentencing, including the application of suspended sentences. Then, in the afternoon, emphasised Robert Abela, in Parliament, these same Members of Parliament vociferously argue on the dangers of an increasing criminality.

He is definitely right on that. But this line of reasoning does not only apply to criminal lawyers. It is also applicable to MPs who are civil and commercial lawyers as well as to other professionals in their specific area of practice. We have been exposed to this over the years in a number of cases. Is it not about time that parliament is made up of full-timers? No Member of Parliament should carry out any other work (paid or unpaid) except that resulting from his/her parliamentary duties. My party has been emphasising this for a considerable number of years. We believe that it is the only way to effectively address the obvious conflict of interest which abounds in Parliament.

Robert Abela said more. He referred to a tete-a-tete with a sitting Magistrate with whom he discussed the lenient sentencing which the Criminal Law Courts are applying. The Magistrate, said Abela, defensively replied that it is all the fault of the appeals court as they consider themselves bound by precedent when they revise the decisions delivered by the inferior courts, ending up in lighter sentences.

Robert Abela was wrong when he conveyed his views directly to one of the Magistrates currently sitting in judgement at the inferior Courts. Bragging about it in public makes it even worse as it conveys the wrong message that the judiciary is at the beck and call of the Executive. This, in plain language, threatens the independence of the judiciary. As a lawyer, Robert Abela is undoubtedly aware that he has gone far beyond the red line.

In any other democratic country where rule of law is fact, not fiction, Robert Abela would have resigned within a couple of hours after having publicly admitting pressuring a sitting Magistrate. Similarly, the Magistrate who allowed the discussion to proceed would by now have been identified and disciplined.

But, as you are aware, nothing has happened yet.

On Monday in a press statement, I have called on the President of the Republic to convene an urgent meeting of the Commission for the Administration of Justice to take the necessary and required action. So far there has been no reaction whatsoever. Possibly his Excellency the President is currently abroad, or, maybe he is extremely busy with some activity promoting the citrous products of the presidential kitchen garden at the San Anton Presidential Palace!

As things stand banana week would definitely be a future activity in the Presidential agenda: this takes priority over the independence of the judiciary, in this Banana Republic!

published in the Malta Independent on Sunday: 5 February 2023

Impjant nuklejari fi Sqallija?

Matul il-kampanja elettorali riċenti tal-2022, fl-Italja, fid-dibattitu politiku, reġgħet infetħet id-diskussjoni dwar il-ġenerazzjoni tal-enerġija nuklejari.

Matteo Salvini, presentement Ministru għall-Infrastruttura u t-Transport, apparti li hu ukoll Deputat Prim Ministru fil-Gvern ta’ koalizzjoni Taljan, emfasizza, li, fl-isfond tal-kriżi enerġetika kurrenti l-Italja għandha tikkunsidra mill-ġdid il-politika tagħha dwar l-impjanti nuklejari.

Il-votanti Taljani darbtejn esprimew ruħhom b’mod ċar dwar ir-rejatturi nuklejari fuq art Taljana. L-aħħar darba li għamlu dan kien f’referendum li sar f’Ġunju 2011, ftit wara d-diżastru nuklejari li seħħ f’Fukushima l-Ġappun f’Marzu 2011. Dakinnhar, 94 fil-mija ta’ dawk li vvutaw għażlu projibizzjoni totali ta’ kostruzzjoni ta’ impjanti nuklejari fl-Italja.

Il-kriżi kurrenti tal-enerġija qed isservi ta’ pressjoni fuq kulħadd biex jinstabu sorsi alternattivi ta’ enerġija bi prezz li nifilħuħ. L-enerġija nuklejari hemm marbuta magħha spejjes moħbija li rari ħafna jittieħdu in konsiderazzjoni kull meta l-materja tkun soġġett ta’ dibattitu politiku: l-iskart nuklejari ġġenerat kif ukoll ir-riskji inerenti, marbuta ma’ ħsara jew funzjonament ħażin  tal-impjanti nuklejari.  L-impatt tal-inċidenti nuklejari fi Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania Stati Uniti – 28 ta’ Marzu 1979), Chernobyl (Ukrajina – 26 t’April 1986) u Fukushima (Ġappun – 11 ta’ Marzu 2011) huma xhieda biżżejjed tal-konsegwenzi li jista’ jkollna niffaċċjaw meta tkun ikkunsidrata l-għażla ta’ enerġija nuklejari.

Il-mod kif niddisponu mill-iskart nuklejari hu suġġett għal dibattitu kontinwu fuq livell globali. L-ispiża biex dan isir hi waħda sostanzjali, u dan b’referenza kemm għall-ispiża ambjentali kif ukoll għal dik finanzjarja.  Fil-passat riċenti, viċin tagħna, l- eko-mafja irmiet kull xorta ta’ skart, inkluż skart nuklejari, fil-Baħar Mediterranean. Dan għamlitu fi 42 vapur differenti, kollha mgħarrqa f’partijiet differenti tal-Mediterran. Il-kaz speċifiku tal-vapur Kunsky mgħarraq ftit il-barra mill-kosta tal-Kalabrija, kien ġie żvelat mill-pentiti tal- ‘Ndrangheta/Camorra, Francesco Fonti u Carmine Schiavone, snin ilu fix-xhieda tagħhom lill-awtoritajiet Taljani.

Bosta mir-riskji tekniċi tal-impjanti nuklejari illum il-ġurnata kważi nstab tarf tagħhom u dan minħabba l-avvanżi kontinwi fit-teknoloġija. Hemm iżda eċċezzjoni waħda! Kif ġie żvelat bħala riżultat tad-diżastru ta’ Fukushima, il-forzi naturali jibqgħu kontinwament bit-tmun f’idejhom!  F’Fukushima, għal darba oħra ġie ikkonfermat li r-riskji marbuta mat-terrimoti mhux la kemm insibu tarf tagħhom! Dan kollu  għandu relevanza kbira għad-dibattitu dwar il-kostruzzjoni ta’ impjanti nuklejari wara biebna, f’teritorju Taljan.

Fl-2011 l-awtoritajiet Taljani kienu indikaw li s-sit fi Sqallija li probabbilment jintuża biex fuqu jinbena impjant nuklejari qiegħed mal-kosta tan-nofsinnhar ħdejn il-lokalità ta’ Palma di Montechiaro. Dan ikun madwar 100 kilometru fil-Majjistral ta’ Għawdex.

Kif nafu, Sqallija hi zona fejn it-terrimoti huma frekwenti. Apparti t-terrimoti frekwenti “żgħar” li  nisimgħu dwarhom u li xi kultant nindunaw bihom matul is-sena, fi Sqallija seħħew tnejn mill-agħar terrimoti li qatt laqgħtu lill-Ewropa. Fl-1693 terrimot fix-Xlokk ta’ Sqallija kellu qawwa ta’ 7.4 filwaqt li f’Messina fl-1908 terrimot ieħor laħaq qawwa ta’ 7.1 fuq l-iskala Mercalli. Dawn iż-żewġ terrimoti ħolqu ħerba u wasslu għat-telfien ta’ bosta ħajjiet. L-infrastruttura ukoll sofriet danni kbar!

Id-deċiżjoni dwar jekk il-Gvern Taljan jerġax jipprova jmur lejn in-nuklejari biex jiġġenera l-elettriku fl-Italja mhux ser tittieħed f’data fil-qrib. Imma, meta jibdew jinġabru l-firem għal referendum fuq is-suġġett ma tantx ikun baqa’ żmien biex għal darba’oħra nqiesu sewwa x’nistgħu nagħmlu.

F’Malta, l-interess tagħna hu dwar l-impatt  fuqna ta’ impjant nuklejari mal-kosta ta’ Sqallija viċin ta’ Palma di Montechiaro f’kaz li dan l-impjant jiżviluppa l-ħsara jew għal xi raġuni jibda jaħdem b’mod erratiku.  

Tajjeb li nżommu f’moħħna li minħabba l-emissjonijiet radjuattivi riżultat tad-diżastru ta’ Fukushima kellha sseħħ evakwazzjoni sħiħa f’distanza ta’ 200 kilometru mill-impjant nuklejari. Għawdex, kif tafu, hu inqas minn 100 kilometru mill-kosta ta’ Sqallija. Daqshekk huma ċari l-konsegwenzi għalina ta’ impjant nuklejari mal-kosta ta’ Sqallija!

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 15 ta’ Jannar 2023

A nuclear reactor in Sicily?

During the recent 2022 electoral campaign, the issue of nuclear energy in neighbouring Italy has resurfaced in the political debate.

Matteo Salvini, currently Minister for the Infrastructure and Transport, in addition to being Deputy Prime Minister of the ruling Italian coalition government, is on record as emphasising that, given the current energy crisis, he considers that it would be expedient to resurrect the nuclear proposal.

Italian voters have expressed themselves clearly on the matter twice. The last time was in a referendum in June 2011 in the aftermath of the Fukushima March 2011 nuclear disaster. Then, 94 per cent of those voting, opted in favour of a total ban on the construction of nuclear reactors on Italian soil.

The current energy crisis is pressuring all to find alternative energy supplies at affordable cost. Nuclear energy, however, comes with two hidden costs which are rarely ever factored into the costings presented for public debate: the disposal of nuclear waste and the inherent risks linked to the failure of the nuclear plants. The impacts of the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania USA – 28 March 1979), Chernobyl (Ukraine – 26 April 1986) and Fukushima (Japan – 11 March 2011) are clear enough testimony of what is at stake, when considering the option of nuclear energy.

The disposal of nuclear waste is the subject of an ongoing debate all over the world. It is costly both environmentally as well as financially. In the recent past, closer to home, the eco-mafia dumped various types of waste including nuclear waste in the Mediterranean Sea in 42 different ships sunk in different parts of the Mediterranean. The specific case of the sunken ship Kunsky off the Calabrian coast was revealed by ‘Ndrangheta/Camorra turncoats Francesco Fonti and Carmine Schiavone many years ago in their testimony to the Italian authorities.

Most of the technical risks of nuclear plants have become more manageable with the technical developments over the years. There is however one exception! As revealed by the Fukushima disaster, natural forces are not always predictable. In Fukushima the risks resulting from earthquakes in the end proved once more to be unmanageable. This is of extreme relevance to the debate on the possible eventual siting of nuclear reactors on the Italian mainland.

The site which in 2011 was indicated by the Italian authorities as the most probable candidate to host a nuclear reactor in Sicily was along the southern coastline in the vicinity of Palma de Montechiaro. That would be less than 100 kilometres to the North West of Gozo.

As we are aware Sicily is an earthquake prone zone. In addition to the multitude of small earthquakes we hear about and occasionally are aware of throughout the year, the Sicilian mainland was exposed to the two most intensive earthquakes ever to hit the European mainland. The 1693 earthquake centred in South East Sicily had a magnitude of 7.4 while the Messina 1908 earthquake had a magnitude of 7.1 on the Mercalli scale. Both created havoc and had a high cost in human life! In addition, the physical infrastructure was in shambles.

A decision on whether the Italian government will once more attempt to consider the generation of nuclear energy on Italian soil is not due anytime soon. However, once the collection of signatures for a referendum on the matter gathers steam it will only be a question of time when we will have to consider facing the music one more time.

Our interest in Malta is in the transboundary impacts generated from a nuclear reactor sited along the southern Sicilian coast close to Palma di Montechiaro, should the proposed nuclear reactor malfunction.

It would be pertinent to keep in mind that the radioactivity emitted as a result of the Fukushima disaster led to a complete evacuation within a 200 km radius of the nuclear plant. Gozo being less than 100 km away from the Sicilian mainland should trigger the alarm bells of one and all as to what is ultimately at stake.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 15 January 2023

Supporting Bill 28

The amendment to the Criminal Code forming part of Bill 28 which Parliament started discussing on Monday 28 November codifies the existing practice at the state hospital. It defines the necessary legal framework for therapeutic abortion. It does not introduce the practice of therapeutic abortion: this has been the practice for quite some time.

The Bill avoids use of the term “abortion”, using instead the term “termination of a pregnancy”, which as we are all aware has exactly the same meaning!

Legislation to date relative to therapeutic abortion is not clear at this point in time. On this basis ADPD-The Green Party was the only political party which tackled the matter during the March 2022 electoral campaign, including a whole section on sexual health and reproductive rights in the electoral manifesto. We went much further than that, emphasising the need for the decriminalisation of abortion too.

The Labour Party in Government, which has been practically silent on the matter during the electoral campaign, has now decided to act, taking a minimalist approach. It has limited itself to ensuring that current practice is protected at law. While this is definitely not enough it is a welcome first step and deserves our full support, even though there is still room for improvement in the proposed text of the proposal.

The Labour Party is right in saying that it is not introducing abortion through Bill 28: therapeutic abortion has been here and practised for some time even in the state hospital. Consequently, the approval of Bill 28 as presented will, in practice, not change anything, it will merely recognise the current state of affairs. As a result, it will give peace of mind to medical practitioners in state hospitals as their current modus operandi would be clearly spelt out in the law, as it should be.

In a sense the current fierce and at times emotional debate on abortion is much ado about nothing. It has however resulted in the local conservative forces speaking from the same hymn book. The opposition to the Bill is primarily twofold. On one hand there is the PN official stand which, together with Archbishop Scicluna has adopted the position paper published by a group of academics. In practice they seek to limit permissible medical interventions to cases of a threat to the life of the pregnant woman, eliminating health issues as justification. On the other hand, exponents of the fundamentalist Christian right, including a minority in the PN rank and file oppose the Bill in principle.

Put simply, the debate identifies three different proposals. The first, proposed by the Labour government in Bill 28, enshrines in law the current practice and places the onus on the medical profession to decide each case on its own merits. The second, supported by the PN opposition and the Church hierarchy seeks to substantially limit the discretion of the medical profession in Bill 28 primarily by eliminating health and mental health considerations. The third position brought forward by the fundamentalist Christian faction is in total opposition to all that is being proposed.

During the Parliamentary debate held this week I took note of the various positive contributions, in particular those of Deputy Prime Minister Chris Fearne, Parliamentary Secretary Rebecca Buttigieg and Opposition spokespersons Joe Giglio and Mario Demarco. Of particular note, in my view, is Fearne’s reference to the hospital’s standard operating procedures. It is being emphasised that these procedures do in fact address important aspects of the criticism aired during the debate, in particular that decisions taken by the medical profession relative to therapeutic abortion procedures should be taken by two or more professionals in order to ensure that no professional shoulders the decision alone. This, I understand is already standard practice!

There is always room for improvement in the proposed text of the Bill as indicated in the level-headed approach of Joe Giglio during the Parliamentary debate on Wednesday. As I emphasised in my article last week it would have been much better if Government had embarked on an exercise of public consultation before presenting the Bill. There would definitely have been more time to listen to and digest the different views. A valid point which was also emphasised by Mario Demarco.

In this scenario, even though viewing it as just a first step, which can be improved: without any shadow of doubt, ADPD supports the proposal put forward by Bill 28 in principle.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 4 December 2022

Proposta nejja tal-Labour dwar l-abort

Nhar it-Tnejn, il-Parlament approva fl-istadju tal-ewwel qari, l-abbozz ta’ liġi numru 28. Dan l-abbozz hu intenzjonat biex jikkjarifika l-provedimenti tal-Kodiċi Kriminali dwar l-abort terrapewtiku. B’mod speċifiku l-għanijiet u r-raġunijiet tal-abbozz huma biex “jipprovdu kjarifika dwar il-parametri fil-Kodiċi Kriminali li għandhom japplikaw għal cirkostanzi ta’ neċessità fejn ikun meħtieġ intervent mediku biex tkun protetta l-ħajja u s-saħħa ta’ mara tqila li tkun qiegħda tbati minn kumplikazzjoni medika.”

Uħud jikkunsidraw li l-abbozz numru 28 hu pass żgħir il-quddiem f’pajjiż li kontinwament ipprova jevita li jiddibatti l-abort. Sfortunatament, imma, l-proposta li ġiet ippreżentata hi waħda nejja.  

Wara snin jevita dibattitu nazzjonali, kien ikun ferm iktar għaqli għall-Gvern li jippubblika White Paper fejn jispjega b’mod ċar u dettaljat dak li jrid jagħmel dwar l-abort kif ukoll dwar dak kollu relatat miegħu. Tajjeb li nirrealizzaw li l-leġislazzjoni dwar l-abort tal-pajjiż ma hi tal-ebda siwi. Wara li ġiet injorata għal 160 sena l-liġi teħtieġ li tkun aġġornata għaż-żminijiet u li tkun tirrifletti l-avvanzi fix-xjenza u l-mediċina tul dawn is-snin kollha. Hemm bżonn li tinkiteb mill-ġdid u dan fid-dawl tal-fatt li tul dawn l-aħħar għaxar sninil-pajjiż ħaddan il-plurliżmu etiku.

Hu ċar li l-Gvern qed jipprova jindirizza l-impatt politiku li rriżulta mill-kaz riċenti tat-turista Amerikana Andrea Prudente, f’liema każ Malta naqset milli tipprovdi l-kura medika li kienet mistennija.

M’għandniex ħtieġa ta’ proposta rejattiva, proposta nejja: imma għandna bżonn proposta li tindirizza ir-realtà tas-seklu wieħed u għoxrin.  L-abort hu parti integrali mill-ħajja Maltija, rridu jew ma irridux! L-indikazzjonijiet huma ta’ medja ta’ 400 abort li jsiru kull sena fost il-Maltin. Il-parti l-kbira jseħħu bl-użu ta’ pilloli li jinkisbu bil-posta.  Oħrajn iseħħu f’pajjiżi oħra, primarjament fir-Renju Unit kif jidher fir-rapporti mediċi annwali ippubblikati.

Il-Partit Laburista jidher li hu xott mill-ideat għax naqas ukoll milli jindirizza l-abort fil-manifest elettorali tiegħu għall-elezzjoni ġenerali ta’ Marzu 2022.

Dan it-tkaxkir tas-saqajn mill-Partit Laburista jikkuntrasta mal-proposti tal-partit immexxi minni li tul ix-xhur li għaddew ippreżentajna proposti diversi biex apparti iktar ċarezza fil-liġi nimxu lejn id-dikriminalizzazzjoni kif ukoll lejn l-introduzzjoni speċifika tal-abort limitat għal tlett ċirkustanzi partikolari u straordinarji. Il-proposta tagħna hi li l-abort ikun permissibli meta l-ħajja jew is-saħħa tal-mara tqila tkun mhedda, fil-kaz ta’ tqala li isseħħ riżultat ta’ vjolenza (stupru u incest) kif ukoll fil-kaz ta’ tqala li ma tkunx vijabbli.

Uħud jikkunsidraw li dak proposta hu ftit wisq, oħrajn li hu wisq. Fil-fehma tagħna il-proposta hi addattata għaċ-ċirkustanzi partikolari lokali. Hi proposta li mhux biss hi ferm aħjar mill-proposta nejja tal-Gvern, imma twassal ukoll biex il-liġi tkun aġġornata għal dak mistenni fi żmienna!

Hemm ukoll materji oħra li huma relatati u li jeħtieġ li jkunu diskussi. Matul din il-ġimgħa grupp ta’ akkademiċi lokali u oħrajn ippubblikaw dokument għad-diskussjoni in konnessjoni mal-proposta tal-Gvern dwar l-abort.

Il-proposti fid-dokument ippubblikat għad-diskussjoni jfittxu li jissikkaw id-definizzjonijiet dwar iċ-ċirkustanzi li fihom ikun ġġustifikat l-intervent mediku biex ikun possibli li tkun protetta l-ħajja u s-saħħa tal-mara tqila. Jeskludi ukoll kull xorta ta’ abort.

Il-punti mqajjma f’dan id-dokument hu dejjem utlili li jkunu diskussi. Għalhekk ilna ngħidu li hemm ħtieġa għal diskussjoni pubblika matura, diskussjoni li l-Gvern ilu żmien jevita.  Imma nistenna ukoll li jkun hemm akkademiċi oħra b’veduti u opinjonijiet differenti li anke huma jsemmgħu leħinhom. Għandhom bżonn joħorġu mill-friża.

Irridu nħarsu lil hinn mill-proposti restrittivi li dan id-dokument għad-diskussjoni jippreżenta. Sa mill-2011, meta kien approvat ir-referendum dwar id-divorzju, Malta għażlet it-triq tal-pluraliżmu etiku: rispett lejn il-pluralità ta’ opinjonijiet u valuri etiċi. Id-dokument li qed nirreferi għalih hu negazzjoni ta’ dan u effettivament hu proposta biex naqbdu triq oħra u differenti. Għandna nirreżistu dan l-attentat.

Fl-aħħar għandu jkun ċar li din mhiex diskussjoni dwar x’inhu tajjeb jew ħażin imma dwar min għandu jieħu d-deċiżjoni kif ukoll dwar il-parametri li jiddeterminaw kif u safejn nistgħu naġixxu. M’aħniex qed ngħixu f’teokrazija: hu dritt li naffermaw illi hu possibli li jeżistu veduti u valuri differenti.

B’hekk beda d-dibattitu li ilu żmien maħnuq.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum: 27 ta’ Novembru 2022

Labour’s half-baked abortion proposal

On Monday Parliament approved at first reading stage Bill number 28 which Bill seeks to clarify the provisions of the Criminal Code relative to therapeutic abortion. Specifically, the objects and reasons of the Bill seek to “provide clarification on the parameters that shall apply in the Criminal Code to circumstances of necessity in which a medical intervention is required in order to protect the life and health of a pregnant woman suffering from a medical complication”.

Some may consider that Bill 28 is a good first step in a country which has continuously avoided debating abortion. Unfortunately, government’s proposal is half-baked.

After years of avoiding a national debate, it would have been much better if government published a detailed White Paper explaining its views on abortion and the related issues and principles. It is about time that we recognise that the country’s abortion legislation is not fit for purpose. After being ignored for 160 years Maltese abortion legislation requires to be brought in line with medical and scientific progress over the years. It also requires a substantial redrafting in view of the fact that for over a decade Malta has embraced ethical pluralism.

It is clear that government has limited itself to addressing the political fallout resulting from the recent case of the American tourist Andrea Prudente as a result of which Malta failed in the provision of the expected medical care.

We do not require a half-baked reactive proposal but rather a proposal which addresses twenty-first century reality. Whether we like it or not, abortion is a regular occurrence among Maltese too! Indications point towards an average 400 abortions which are carried out annually, a substantial portion of which through the use of abortion pills acquired through the post. Others are carried out through abortion tourism, primarily in the United Kingdom as is evidenced by annual published medical returns for England and Wales.

Apparently, the Labour Party is short on ideas as it has even failed to address abortion in its electoral manifesto for the March 2022 general election.

In contrast to the reluctance of the Labour Party to come forward with proposals, the Maltese Greens, which I lead, have, over the past months presented proposals which in addition to the required clarifications in our legislation seek decriminalisation as well as the specific introduction of abortion in three extraordinary circumstances: namely when the pregnant female’s health or life is under threat, in cases of a pregnancy brought about violently (rape and incest) as well as in the case of non-viable pregnancies.

Some have considered our above proposals as being too little, others as being too much. We consider that in view of the prevailing local circumstances our proposals are just right, a substantial improvement over government’s half-baked proposals and an overhaul of the current mid-nineteen century legislation, which is out of tune with what is expected in this day and age.

There are other related issues which we should also discuss. During this week a group of local academics and some hangers-on have published a discussion paper which discusses government’s abortion proposal.

The proposals in the said discussion paper seek to tightly define the circumstances which justify a medical intervention to protect the life and health of a pregnant woman. It also seeks to exclude all forms of abortion by tightly defining the applicable parameters.

It is a point of view which should be considered and discussed. This is what a mature public debate should be about and what government has been continuously avoiding. I would however expect other academics having different views to come out of the deep freeze and speak up.

We should look beyond the restrictive proposals presented in the discussion paper. Since the 2011 divorce referendum Malta has embarked on a journey of ethical pluralism which respects a plurality of views and ethical norms. The discussion paper is a negation of this journey and an attempt to change course, which attempt should be resisted.

At the end of the day the debate is not about what is right and wrong but on who should take the decision and the parameters within which it is permissible to act. We are not living in a theocracy. Differing views and values can definitely co-exist.

Let the debate, at last, begin.

published on Malta Independent on Sunday : 27 November 2022

Daphne: the five-year wait for justice

Most of us remember what we were doing five years ago slightly after 3pm on Monday October 16, 2017, when the news flashed that a car had exploded in Bidnija. The possible connection with Daphne was immediate, even then, at that critical moment, when nothing else was yet known.

Slowly we got to know what had actually happened. 

The first reactions, then, five years ago were, and still are, significant.

Everyone was shocked, five years ago, when the Magistrate on duty, Consuelo Scerri-Herrera turned up on site at Bidnija. She failed to realise that this specific investigation was a no-go area for her!  I had then commented that Scerri-Herrera’s reluctance to abstain from leading this magisterial investigation was testimony to the fact that some members of the bench still need to master much more than the law.

Five years later, matters have not changed a bit as is evidenced by the behaviour of another Magistrate. Magistrate Nadine Lia is refusing to accept that she has an obvious conflict of interest and must hence withdraw from the consideration of another case currently under her consideration. Some things never change! The ethical behaviour of the judiciary is indispensable, now more than ever. How can the judiciary expect to be respected if it does not even respect itself?

Five years ago, we even had a Police Sergeant posting his comments on social media on his being overjoyed at the day’s happenings in Bidnija! Much worse was however in store. In fact, the then Deputy Police Commissioner Silvio Valletta took overall charge of the police investigation into the assassination, only for it to be revealed much later that he was literally in the pockets of Yorgen Fenech, currently undergoing criminal proceedings on charges of having commissioned Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination. Remember Uncle Silvio?

How could the Police carry out its duties adequately with Silvio Valletta, then Deputy Police Commissioner, hibernating deep inside criminal pockets, and leading the investigation into the assassination of Daphne?

Following the evidence in the multiple cases in our law courts dealing with the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia was in itself a documentation of the failure of the state. This was even confirmed by the public inquiry into the assassination. It is a failure of the institutions which have been hijacked into servicing the criminal world.

Daphne’s investigative journalism, as it unfolded over the years, was a threat to all this. She exposed the ineffective institutions. She shone a light on the men and women of straw who think they are running the state when in fact they are puppets on a string controlled by various lobbies, including the criminal lobby.

Her last published words were significant as they spelled out her fears. “There are crooks everywhere you look now. The situation is desperate.”  She was commenting on Keith Schembri, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s Chief of Staff with reference to libel proceedings against Simon Busuttil as he had taken offence to being labelled a crook, and corrupt.  In her last article published minutes before she was blown up Daphne had spelt out that “The crook Schembri was in court today, pleading that he is not a crook.”

The developments over the past sixty months are proving without a shadow of doubt “that crooks are everywhere”.  It has resulted that the Office of the Prime Minister was run by crooks: as a result, Joseph Muscat had no option but to resign. He had been protecting the crooks around him for far too long!

With all these obstacles it is no wonder that after five years the end of the investigations into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia is not yet in sight. No one is certain yet whether there was one mastermind plotting the assassination or else whether there were two or more.

We do not have an answer yet, as to whether any politician was in the know, or worse, directly involved, even though there have been a number of public references to former Labour Cabinet Minister, Chris Cardona in this respect.

We have been witnessing the exposure of a web of criminality which has infiltrated and infected all sectors of society. The investigations which we have witnessed developing over the past five years have revealed an intricate network which pervades practically all institutions. Just like the octopus which with its eight long tentacles seeks to control all from a distance. It is no wonder that after sixty months the end is not yet in sight.  The octopus is still in control.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 16 December 2022