The Hospital scam: collusion from day one

Around seven months ago, the Court of Appeal, presided by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, had concluded that the hospitals’ deal appeared fraudulent. While the original court decision had blamed Vitals/Stewards for this fraudulent deal, the Court of Appeal went one step further. Confirming the cancellation of the contracts, the Court of Appeal stated that it believed there was collusion between Vitals/Stewards and senior government officials or its agencies.

Collusion signifies secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy to deceive others. This is the certification the Court of Appeal delivered after examining the government’s handling of the hospital privatisation process.

Faced with such a certification any democratic government would have immediately shouldered political responsibility and we would have had resignations on a large scale, in government and in the wider civil service. Not in Malta. Except for the government’s taking over the direct control of the hospitals, it was as if practically nothing had ever happened.

This is the background to last week’s conclusion of the magisterial inquiry into the hospitals’ privatisation deal. While the Court of Appeal had concluded that senior government officials were complicit in the privatisation fraud, the magisterial inquiry is expected to identify who did which part of the dirty job. This is presumably the reason for the long list of persons who have been identified by the magisterial inquiry to answer for their actions.

Some readers will undoubtedly remember that, way back in October 2014, the Labour government had secretly signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with potential investors who were interested in “investing” in the Maltese health system. This had been revealed in one of the Auditor General’s reports investigating the hospital scam. The information that these same investors had in hand as a result of this MoU was subsequently utilised when six months later a public call for expression of interest was issued for the privatisation of the hospitals. It gave them an unfair advantage over all others who were interested.

What followed were various manoeuvres as a result of which the Maltese government representatives were “convinced” that they had a good deal in selecting Vitals Global Health Care to take over the running of the hospitals.

As a result, we have had detailed investigations by the National Audit Office and the magisterial inquiry which was triggered by NGO Repubblika.

Subsequent to the conclusion of the magisterial inquiry the first names of those to be accused of wrongdoing have been published. We have holders of political office, senior government officials, professionals in private practice, and persons in positions of trust all of whom are being accused of having a finger in the pie through fraudulent action, corruption and money laundering. At the time of writing, the details are not yet known as the legal jargon in which the criminal charges are framed is too general and wide-embracing.

Should matters have arrived at this point?

It has taken almost ten years for this fraudulent exercise to be uncovered and brought under control. Yet, had the institutions functioned properly it should have been nipped in the bud and never even happened. What was the role of the civil service in the creation of this mess? The presence of three Permanent Secretaries (and other civil servants) among those facing criminal charges indicates that the inquiring magistrate may have possibly identified an answer to this question.

Prime Minister Robert Abela has, in the past days, shed many crocodile tears in expressing support for a number of those facing criminal charges. He has also single-handedly contributed to the creation of an atmosphere of distrust in our judiciary. He should know better than that. Robert Abela should immediately desist from further undermining confidence in the courts and, from endangering the rule of law in our country.

The judiciary should be able to carry out its work without pressure and intimidation so that justice can run its course. Having already been at the receiving end of the impacts of grey-listing, Malta cannot risk further reputational damage as a result of Robert Abela’s hysterical outbursts.

published on the Malta Independent on Sunday : 12 May 2024

From business-friendly to people-friendly

Public land is being continuously taken over for tables and chairs as an outdoor extension of restaurants and cafeterias. It is a land grab and has been going on for years. This land grab has intensified after the outbreak of COVID-19, primarily in response to the then restrictions on the permissible indoor numbers of customers allowed within catering establishments.

The most obvious examples of this land grab are in places like Sliema, Marsaskala, St Paul’s Bay, and Valletta. This land grab, however, is taking place all over the island, in practically all localities.

There are instances, such as in the case of squares, pedestrianized streets, and other large open spaces, where the placing of chairs and tables does not bother anyone. In these instances, complaints are rare, except when excessive noise is generated, particularly in the silent hours. In these cases, the use of public spaces for the placing of tables and chairs can be justified, provided that the space taken up for such use is reasonable and respects the rights of both the public as well as the residential communities.

The ever-increasing complaints are in respect of those instances where pavements are practically completely taken over by the placing of tables and chairs such that pedestrians, obstructed from using the pavement end up having to share the road with moving traffic, at considerable risk to themselves. It gets worse in the case of wheelchair users and their carers, as well as in the case of parents with children, particularly those still in prams.

In residential areas, that is in those instances where there are a number of residential units above ground-floor commercial establishments, the placing of tables and chairs on the pavement also restricts residents’ access to their homes. There is the added issue, encountered in many cases, of difficulty in accessing residential units when making deliveries of large objects, such as furniture and white goods. The land grab makes access in these instances practically impossible.  Access would be even worse in case of emergencies. I have not heard a whimper from the civil protection authorities on the matter.

As emphasised in the ADPD 2022 Electoral Manifesto, we want our pavements back. The use of pavements should revert to their intended use. Pedestrians should always have priority. It is about time that public authorities shift their emphasis from being business-friendly to people-friendly.  The needs of residents and pedestrians should take precedence over the interests of business! The pavement is, after all, not meant for tables and chairs but to facilitate the mobility of people such that they are safe from traffic.

This would entail that planning applications for placing tables and chairs in open areas are vetted properly, such vetting being based on the real impacts on both the residential community and pedestrians. It would also mean that continuous monitoring is carried out to ensure that the permit limitations are observed.

Just a little bit of effort in enforcement would make quite a significant difference. Unfortunately, enforcement is practically nonexistent. This lack of enforcement is the driving force that motivates those abusing the system to ride roughshod over the rights of residents and pedestrians. They know that most probably their abuse will be ignored as it has been for ages. This has always been interpreted that the state does not care at all.

During the local elections next month, this issue is a matter of considerable importance to residents. It is a campaign issue that is continuously brought up in discussions with voters.

The Marsascala ADPD candidate Brian Decelis has been campaigning on the matter for some time. This week he was confronted by one of the operators who is obstructing pavements at Marsaskala. He was even threatened. A police report has been submitted on the incident and it is hoped that swift action will be taken by the police authorities.

This mess should be addressed, all over the islands, the soonest.

Local Councils should be at the front line in ensuring that the authorities act such that permits issued for the placing of tables and chairs outside commercial establishments are people-friendly and that abusive operators are brought to order the soonest.  Electing local councilors sensitive to the matter would make a substantial difference.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 5 May 2024

Dawk it-78 boxfile

Robert Abela qiegħed jipprova jkeskes lin-nies kontra l-Qrati. Spiċċa issa dak li kien jgħid biex “inħallu lill-istituzzjonijiet jaħdmu.”

L-inkjesti dejjem idumu. Dawk ta’ importanza u serjetà kbira jdumu iktar. Li kien ikun ħażin kien kieku l-inkjesta tagħmel żmien wieqfa. Sakemm iż-żmien intuża biex tinġabar l-informazzjoni neċessarja biex tkun ippreservata ix-xhieda dwar dak kollu li ġara in konnessjoni mat-trasferiment tat-tlett sptarijiet lil Vitals, ikun hemm spjegazzzjoni raġjonevoli għad-dewmien.

L-ispjegazzjoni ikun possibli li nkunu nafuha meta dak li ikkonkludiet l-inkjesta jkun magħruf. S’issa, kif jiġri dejjem, xejn għadu mhu magħruf. Tal-inqas jiena u (probabbilment) inti li qed taqra ma nafu xejn!

Inutli nispekulaw, għax fiċ-ċirkustanzi l-ispekulazzjoni ħażin tagħmel. Ħażin lil kulħadd, peró l-ikbar ħsara issir lill-pajjiż. Dan Robert Abela jafu: imma minkejja dan jibqa’ jkeskes.

Ma tistax tkun kredibbli meta b’nifs wieħed tappella biex ħadd ma jirreaġixxi għall-provokazzjoni, imma immedjatament wara issaħħan l-irjus.

Robert Abela għamel tajjeb li talab biex l-Avukat Ġenerali (l-AG) tippubblika r-rapport tal-inkjesta. Kull miżura li tista’ tnaqqas l-ispekukazzjoni hi miżura tajba. Id-deċiżjoni, imma, tiddependi mill-AG biss, li nifhem li tiddeċiedi skond kif inhu l-aħjar biex issir ġustizzja, imma, anke b’mod li ma tippreġudikax l-istess ġustizzja.

Għalhekk xejn ma neħodha bi kbira jekk ir-riżultat tal-inkjesta jdum ma jkun ippubblikat.

Bħalissa, avukati fl-uffiċċju tal-AG ikunu qed jeżaminaw il-konklużjonijiet li waslet għalihom il-Maġistrat Gabriella Vella fir-rapport tal-inkjesta, u dan flimkien max-xhieda u l-provi li ġabret u li qegħdin merfugħha f’dawk it-78 boxfile.

Jekk l-inkjesta, biex ġiet konkluża, ħadet 4 snin u nofs, ħadd m’għandu jistenna li l-AG u l-Pulizija jieħdu deċiżjonijiet ta’ malajr.

L-unika ħaġa li nafu s’issa hu li l-AG talbet lill-Qorti biex ikunu iffrizati l-assi ta’ numru ta’ persuni u kumpaniji: hemm 84 (erbgħa u tmenin) isem. Il-Qorti ippreseduta mill-Imħallef Edwina Grima laqgħet it-talba. Dan ifisser li l-AG pass pass bdiet taġixxi.

Il-bieraħ waqt konferenza stampa l-ex Prim Ministru Joseph Muscat qalilna li hu dejjem mexa tajjeb. Jaf, qal, x’għamel u x’ magħmilx! Ovvjament jiena ma nafx x’għamel u x’magħmilx Joseph Muscat. Biex il-maġistrat saret taf x’għamel hu u x’għamlu l-oħrajn li ser jissemmew damet 4 snin u nofs tfittex u issaqsi.

Kulħadd jieħu pjaċir kieku t-tmexxija tal-pajjiż hi nadifa tazza. Biex ikun ivverifikat jekk dan hux minnu hemm il-Pulizija u l-Qrati. Għalhekk l-inkjesta, għalhekk it-78 boxfile.

Imma naħseb li lkoll saqajna mal-art u nafu li mhux kollox hu sewwa. Hemm min donnu diġa nesa’li diġa’ hemm sentenza tal-Qorti, ikkonfermata fl-appell, li fil-kaz tal-isptarijiet hemm ħafna x’ixxomm.

Min hu responsabbli għal dak li ġara? Joseph jgħid li mhux hu. It-83 l-oħra huma siekta s’issa.

Issa naraw jekk hux il-ħajbu.

Presidential theatrics and arm-twisting

(photo: presenting to President George Vella proposals for the consideration of the Constitutional Convention : 5 November 2019)

The role of the President in the governance of this Republic, on paper, is just an issue of formality. In practice, however, it can be much more than that.

Undoubtedly Myriam Spiteri Debono will be a different President from her predecessors. Spiteri Debono has a distinct advantage over all of her predecessors: she has no political baggage because she has not held any executive political office to date. Only Sir Anthony Mamo, the first President, had the same advantage!

In her inaugural speech as President, Myriam Spiteri Debono made many an important political point. Fundamentally she emphasized that she will not seek to influence the political debate (a difficult pledge which, however, she did not strictly follow herself). Although she did not name him, this was a clear dig at her predecessor, who, in addition to lobbying the executive intensively in favour of his contrasting political views, unashamedly interfered in the public debate on proposals relative to the IVF legislative changes as well as on Bill 28 which sought to clarify the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code.

His Excellency George Vella would have been taken to task in any self-respecting Parliament. A motion for his removal, because of his behavior, would have been submitted for Parliament’s consideration.  Almost two years ago, given the President’s behaviour in office, I had written in these columns that there are “valid reasons to consider the impeachment of Dr. George Vella from his Presidential duties.” (TMIS: The Presidential rubberstamp: 31 July 2022)

Any person who allows his personal views to conflict with his or her Constitutional duties is, in my view, not fit for office.

Parliament, unfortunately, was not irked by George Vella’s arm-twisting of the executive. It was not bothered, as it thanked Vella for his services! Not one of the Members of Parliament stood up to remind one and all that when the holder of the office of the President interferes in the political debate, he/she is performing a grave disservice to the Republic.

One only hopes that there is no repetition of this interference in parliament’s work.

Parliament needs to reinforce the office of the President. In particular, for example, the Constitution needs some clarity as to how the President can defend the Constitution when he/she does not have the appropriate legal tools available. 

Let me clarify: It is essential to consider in some depth the role of the President of the Republic. Specifically, we should consider whether the President should continue to be just a rubberstamp or whether he or she should have limited review powers over Parliament’s legislative function.

ADPD- The Green Party, in submissions to the still pending Constitutional Convention, focused on this specific matter, among other issues. In the document submitted to the Convention, my party proposed that the President should be able to send legislation back to Parliament for its reconsideration, if, in his/her view such legislation runs counter to the provisions of the Constitution.

The President, on assuming office, declares that he/she will do all it takes to defend the Constitution. He/she is not however equipped with any (constitutional) tools with which to carry out this responsibility.

The Green proposal presented more than four years ago for the consideration of the Constitutional Convention identifies an essential tool with which His Excellency the President can act responsibly within the parameters of the law. We further proposed that should Parliament refuse to budge, the President should refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for a final decision. 

This is how the Presidency should function. Much better than when it was subject to the George Vella theatrics, lobbying, and arm-twisting of the executive.

published in Malta Independent on Sunday : 14 April 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

Angelo Gafà jiftiehem ma’ tal-Muzewijiet

Donnu li issa ser neħduha drawwa. Kollox bil-maqlub.

Il-Kamra tal-Periti ftehmet mal-iżviluppaturi. Issa l-Kummissarju tal-Pulizija ftiehem ma Heritage Malta.

X’jonqos? Li l-Pulizija tiftiehem ma’ Yorgen Fench f’isem ir-residenti ta’ Kordin?

Għax donnu li ma dawk li għandhom ċans li jiksbu residenza Kordin fit-tul, qiesu diġa ftehmu.

Lill-Korp tal-Pulizija irrendewh f’Mużew, u xogħolhom qajla jagħmluh.

Għaliex għaddew dawn is-snin kollha u l-kriminali l-kbar għadhom jiġru mas-saqajn?

Hemm għalfejn tkun il-Qorti biex tordna li jittieħdu passi kontra dawk li ħawwdu fil-balbuljata tal-isptarijiet? Meta ser tintrefa’ r-responsabbiltà kriminali fil-kaz tal-Vitals Global Healthcare? Meta ser iwieġbu għal għemilhom il-kriminali ta’ Kastilja u tal-Mile End?

Mhux aħjar jaghmel xogħolu sew il-Kummissarju flok joqgħod jgħaddi ż-żmien fil-Mużew tal-Pulizija?

The 15-minute city

Every city can benefit from a reconsideration of its urban priorities. In this era of climate change various cities around the world have taken initiatives in order to contribute their share to the achievement of carbon neutrality. The 15-minute city is one such initiative which reimagines the urban fabric in order to prioritise people over cars, in the process reducing the carbon footprint: “ville du quart d’heure”, the “quarter hour city”. 

It is a vision which is mostly associated with Paris and is the brainchild of Carlos Moreno (in photo above) an architect advising the Mayor of Paris. It has however been also applied in various other cities around the world. The aim is to encourage self-sufficient communities, where all basic needs are just a walk, or a bike ride away from your home, as a result slowly addressing our addiction to the car which we would need less and less.

This is a practical application of urban proximity, as a result of which cities move away from the use of fossil fuels into a vehicle free era. It is the mobility modal shift we require in this day and age to effectively deal with the emissions linked to private transport.

It is not always easy to apply these ideas in established urban areas where land use patterns and infrastructure is already in place. However, it is a practical way of integrating policy derived from climate change objectives with land use planning.

In Malta distance is not an issue, as everywhere is already almost within easy reach. We do not need any special effort in this respect. Our National Transport Masterplan, in fact, advises us that 50 per cent of trips carried out by our cars are for short distances, having a duration of less than 15 minutes. Within this context, achieving 15-minute cities should not be that difficult if we put our heads together to address it.

In a post Covid era, working from home is increasing in frequency, although this is not possible for all types of work. This reduces our travel requirements.

We must also be able to address our basic needs for food and medicine in our locality. For this to materialise we need however to ensure that small and medium sized businesses in our localities are encouraged to stay open for business notwithstanding the stiff competition which they continuously face from big business.  There are ways in which they can be assisted to overcome the difficulties they face. This is not only in their interest but more in the interest of the community they serve.

The supermarkets mushrooming around the islands is a case in point. Each supermarket has a substantial catchment area. Most users of supermarkets travel by private car to do their shopping when it most suits them. In an age when most of us are more conscious of the fact that private car use is a significant contributor to Malta’s climate change impacts, we should factor this into land use planning considerations.

Some may argue that supermarkets, as a result of their economies of scale, provide goods at substantially reduced prices from that possible in small or medium sized retail outlets in our localities.  It has however to be viewed also in the context of expenses incurred not only in car use but also in the resulting reduction to the air quality and the associated health consequences. Expenses incurred, at the end of the day, are not only those measured in euro, they are also measured in terms of the social and environmental costs incurred.

We need to ensure that our localities are equipped to live up to present day challenges. Ensuring their self-sufficiency would definitely be an adequate objective which can be achieved through the development of 15-minute cities.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 4 February 2024

The right to know and the duty to remember

“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” Attributed to Spanish-American philosopher Jorge Santayana, these words signify not only the duty to remember, but more, the right to know. 

We remember that which we know. How can we remember that which we do not know: that which has been hidden from our view? 

Unfortunately, our society, most conveniently, is, at times, more interested in promoting the right to forget, or better still, the right to be forgotten! Forgetting and consequently ignoring the past always has disastrous consequences.

Transparency is a basic value in any democracy worthy of its name. Without transparency there is no possibility of having any form of accountability. Hiding information, ensuring that it is not accessible, is a common stratagem used by those who want to avoid accountability. Data protection is unfortunately continuously being used and abused in order to avoid accountability.

Data protection rights are unfortunately continuously being abused, as a result, at times, shielding criminal activity. Though well intentioned, the recent decision of the Data Protection Commissioner on the publication of online chats between Yorgen Fenech and Rosianne Cutajar is part of this (unintended) fallout of privacy rights. Though in fairness it has to be stated that it is the publication of the full chats which has irked the Data Protection Commissioner and not the information contained therein.

Reading through the Yorgen/Rosienne chats decision of the Data Protection Commissioner reveals the tightrope negotiated by the Commissioner to try and protect both privacy as well as the right to be informed. It is appreciated that it is always difficult to draw a line as to where privacy ends and public interest reigns.

But then having the full chats published instead of a synthesis, as indirectly suggested by the Commissioner, served the purpose of not quoting out of context. The full context of the chats is essential as this clearly shows the toxic development of a mix of the power of money, sex, and political power. Through what was published it is clear how money and expensive gifts was the price through which a young politician was purchased. This is definitely in the public interest to know.

The right to know is not the satisfaction of a curiosity thirst. In any democracy, the free flow of information is basic and essential. Withholding information or obstruction of access to it should only be an exceptional occurrence.

Unfortunately, rather than being exceptional, the withholding of information or access to it, is fast becoming a normality.

Our Courts are resorting too often to withholding the publication of sensitive information. The court case of the NGO Repubblika challenging the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute top Pilatus Bank officials will no longer be heard behind closed doors as the original decision has now been reversed. This was another instance where our right to know was being stifled by those same authorities entrusted to defend us! Fortunately, the doors are now open. We have the right to know whether it is correct to state that the Attorney General acted abusively in defending criminality instead of prosecuting it! Has the criminal world captured the state institutions? This is what is at stake in this case! We have the right to know.

The reluctance of government to adhere to Freedom of Information Tribunal decisions is another disturbing matter.  For example, the Shift online news portal has won 40 cases at the Information Tribunal and 18 cases in Court relative to information requested on consultancy contracts and payments made to Saviour Balzan and his companies. Millions of euros of public funds have been used. Government is however refusing to be accountable for this use of these public funds.

What is the purpose of this secrecy? Has the state purchased the collaboration of a section of the media? This is what is at stake here. We have the right to know.

The right to know is basic in any democracy. Transparency and accountability work in tandem. Without transparency, accountability is hampered. A lack of transparency is an essential first step in order to ensure that accountability is avoided altogether.

Transparency is the indispensable foundation of good governance. In contrast, bad governance is generally wrapped in secrecy through the withholding of information which should be in the public domain. Without transparency, accountability is a dead letter: devoid of any meaning whatsoever. Accountability is about responsibility: it signifies the acknowledgement and assumption of responsibility for our actions. This cannot be achieved unless and until transparency is entrenched as an essential element of the operation of the state and public institutions.

Whenever government, public bodies or state institutions are secretive about information which they hold, and refuse or oppose without valid reason requests to release information they give ample proof of their governance credentials.

We deserve better than that.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 28 January 2024

Climate change governance and political incompetence

It has been announced that an Authority on Climate Change will be set up by government. This  has apparently been approved by Cabinet, earlier this week. No further details have so far been released.

It is not at all clear whether this authority will be expected to take charge of the action required on a national level in order to mitigate the impacts of climate change, or else, whether it will take the lead in the initiatives required to adapt to climate change.

Currently available on the website of the Ministry responsible for Climate Change one can peruse a draft document dated September 2023 and entitled Draft Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030. As far as I am aware this document is still a draft. A definite version has apparently not been published yet notwithstanding that it should have been in effect 3 years ago! This draft document lays down national objectives relative to energy policy within the context of the climate change debate.

There is no Climate Change Adaptation Strategy available on the Ministry’s website. Some years ago (May 2012) a National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy was adopted and published, but apparently this has not been updated. It could, most probably, have been discarded; however, no information is available on the matter. Perusing my copy of the said strategy, I recollect that it was a reasonable first effort and was supplemented by an extensive 164-page report drawn up by the then Climate Change Committee for Adaptation. These documents were drawn up after extensive public consultation.

While energy issues are foremost in any Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, we need to go in considerable detail on other equally important aspects, such as the impacts of climate change on agriculture, water resources, health, civil protection, land use planning, tourism, coastal settlements, protection of the coastal infrastructure as well as biodiversity and the marine environment.

The debate on water resources has been ongoing and various policy initiatives have addressed the matter over the years. I am not sure as to what has been done by the Agriculture Ministry or the Health Ministry, but at the end of the day it is those same Ministries which need to initiate, implement and monitor the required action in their areas of responsibility.

Similarly, the Tourism Ministry seems clueless on climate change impacts on the industry. I have yet to come across a serious assessment of climate change on tourism in the Maltese islands and in particular on the potential havoc which tourism infrastructure will have to face as a result of an inevitable sea level rise.

What about inbuilding climate change considerations in land use planning policy and design guidelines? The 15-minute city initiative in Paris and elsewhere specifically addresses climate change in an urban policy context. Yet the Planning Authority in Malta is not bothered at all.

On the other hand, we need to realise that there have been various valid proposals over the years which have been discarded by government. One specific example which comes to mind is the proposal in the National Transport Master Plan which has pointed out the need to embark on private vehicle restraint.

The fact that to date we have an out-of-date Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and no effective coordination at Ministerial level on climate change impacts across all areas, signifies a failure of the Climate Change Ministry to implement its basic political brief over the years.

This is where the proposed Climate Change Authority comes in. It will most probably be considered essential to fill the coordination gap created by incompetence at the political level over the years.

The Ministry responsible for Climate Change specifically exists to coordinate, across government, issues of climate change through the various Ministries. This coordination has, unfortunately, over the years been inexistent. Hence the proposed solution to setup an authority to fill in the gap.

Climate change governance, over the years, has been characterised by political incompetence. The creation of an authority will just serve to shift the blame.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 14 January 2024

Personalising the welfare state

The Malta Community Chest Fund Foundation (MCCF) “………. is vital for us as oncologists in Malta. Without its assistance, many treatments would be off limits and the help we would be able to offer in some instances would therefore be seriously restricted.” This is a comment found on the last available MCCF annual report for the year 2020. It is attributed to Prof Nick Refalo, a consultant oncologist.

Generous help in cancer treatment has for a long time been at the forefront of the sterling work done by the MCCF. This help, generally, supplements the Health Ministry’s work. Over the years charity and voluntary work has been plugging in the gaps left wide open by the welfare state as a direct result of its one-size-fits-all approach.

The welfare state, as most other state initiatives, is generally a one-size-fits-all exercise, supplemented in specific circumstances. It is designed for the average person, for whom it may be just enough. But it is not sufficient, as practically no one fits the average person!  

On television, on the morrow of Christmas, we are shown one case after the other which had to rely on the funds collected in previous years in order to supplement the help from the health authorities or worse to fill in the gaps in the national health service. “Kif tista’ ma ċċempilx?”

The objective is laudable. The way to go about it, however, leaves much to be desired. At times, unethically parading on prime-time television the pain of those who, having suffered the failures of the welfare state had to revert to MCCF, is not on. Their pain is being unethically used to cash the generated pity through the collection of more funds. The methods used to generate funds should not undermine the basic objective of restoring human dignity through personalized care and attention. Even when consent is forthcoming, the methods used by l-Istrina are downright debasing.

Later, during the year, various other worthy initiatives will be spot-lighted. Millions of euro will be collected to support these other initiatives. They are no less deserving.

Perusal of the audited accounts of the MCCF for the year 2021, at the time of writing the latest data available on the MCCF website, reveals, that for the 2021 financial year, Government contributed an additional €13 million directly towards financing the commitments made. A substantial input without which the operations of the foundation would not be possible.

The politics of social solidarity is clearly an area where the state cannot do it alone. Beyond the indispensable financial contributions collected throughout the year, however, at the end of the day it is the personalization of welfare which makes the substantial difference.

The MCCF, throughout the year also distributes food vouchers to the tune of €20,000 monthly. Food banks and the Franciscan soup kitchen in Valletta tackle the same social issue most probably reaching out to areas which the formal social service network fails to link with.

The politics of social solidarity aims to restore human dignity by reaching out individually to each and every one of the downtrodden. This is done through supplementing the one-size-fits-all social services provided by the state though the personalized attention which the various NGO initiatives in hand make possible.

The need for social solidarity is not a seasonal one. It can be much helped through a judicious use of public resources. Adequately addressing the squandering of public resources throughout the rest of the year as pointed out by the Auditor General, could help considerably.

It is right to supplement the welfare state in the short term. However, in the longer term, the welfare state should be tweaked in order that its reach is extended to the neglected corners which are identified from time to time. The personalization of welfare, where this is possible, can also be taken up directly by the state in the services it provides. It will make a difference and is more effective than distributing cheques on the eve of elections or the so-called tax refunds.

The Christmas spirit of solidarity should not be limited to the day after Christmas. It should reign 365 days a year. 366 days in a leap year!

published in The Independent on Sunday : 31 December 2023