Licensing the construction industry

Watching the collapse of the structure which killed Jean-Paul Sofia sends shock waves through every bit of my body each time I catch a split-second glimpse of the relative video.

The magisterial inquiry is under way but for some inexplicable reason there is a resistance to a much wider public inquiry. Faced with the resulting death and multiple injuries, the public inquiry is an essential tool which could make it possible to understand what actually happened, beyond the accident itself. The public inquiry could definitely unravel important information on a number of specifics which had a bearing on the accident even if at first glance these are possibly unconnected.

So far no one has been charged. It is not known whether anybody has been interrogated on the incident, except, probably, as part of the magisterial inquiry itself, which is unfortunately taking too long to conclude. It is possible that there are valid reasons for this delay, but we are not aware of these as the magistrate in charge of the inquiry does not normally go around explaining such matters. I believe that it is in the public interest for the Court Registrar to explain matters as we have a right to know, just as much as the Law Courts have a duty to explain.

It has been stated that the licensing of the construction industry will lead to its improvement. This, we are told, would ensure the development of an industry that respects rules and ensures their uniform enforcement, as a result being more protective of life and limb.

I do not think that anyone desires otherwise. However, the proposals in the draft licence regulations do not necessarily lead in that direction. They need much more than fine-tuning.

The proposed regulations list the qualifications and documentation which an applicant for one of the three types of construction licence (demolition, excavation/piling, construction) should comply with. One of these documents is the conduct certificate. The proposed regulations, however, do not clearly spell out whether, and the extent to which, the contents of such a conduct certificate should have a bearing on the adjudication process leading to a decision on the issuing or the withholding of a licence.

Specifically, being bankrupt is a licence disqualification which is clearly spelt out in the proposed regulations. Which conduct or behaviour will be considered as disqualifying an applicant for a licence or its renewal?  Zero tolerance of unacceptable behaviour should be clearly spelt out as grounds for disqualification. We do not need to wait for the ultimate consequences to disqualify an applicant or a licence holder. Acting in a timely manner, before it is too late, should be the objective of the licencing and regulatory process. This should be as clearly spelt out as bankruptcy in the proposed regulations! Being assumed, implied or discretionary is not sufficient.

How about those who have a history of enforcement issues with the Building Construction Authority (BCA)? Should such a history have a bearing on the issuing of a licence or its renewal?  Where do we draw the line? Considering the recorded behaviour of all applicants should definitely be the starting point of the licencing process. Applicants should not be considered as having a clean slate: all their existing baggage should have a direct bearing in the consideration of whether they should be licenced or not. Past behaviour is definitely a guarantee of future patterns of behaviour. If the past is ignored it is bound to be repeated. All this is unfortunately ignored by the draft regulations.

Specifically, the impacts of the whole process of construction on third parties needs to be given considerable importance even as a licencing requirement. Too many building contractors run roughshod over the concerns of neighbouring residents. This is not always satisfactorily addressed by the operators, at times leading to lengthy litigation. This is an area which, with proper enforcement, the licensing process should eventually improve substantially.

Case-law indicates that both the imposition of substantial administrative fines as well as the suspension or withdrawal of licences can be challenged on constitutional grounds. The long-drawn-out legal battles which will inevitably develop will render the regulatory process ineffective and as a result undermining the whole reform.

Likewise, there is serious potential for abuse. Administrative action may be used to intentionally eliminate the possibility for criminal action. The matter has already arisen in an environmental case where criminal action already initiated could not proceed due to the matter having been addressed through the payment of an administrative fine.

Furthermore, the Building and Construction Tribunal which would eventually consider appeals concerning licences, although described as independent and impartial, is nothing of the sort.  It is made up of part-timers who are in full-time private practice which includes advising operators in the building construction industry. This creates legal grounds for the contestation of all its decisions.

The effectiveness of the licencing process will, at the end of the day be dependent on the resources made available to the Building and Construction Authority in order that it can fulfil its regulatory responsibilities. The Authority must be proactive. It can only do this if its inspectors do not await the lodging of a report in order to take action.

Government’s declared willingness to act, regulate and enforce is positive. Only time will however show if this willingness is translated into concrete results. Signs so far are however not promising.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 19 March 2023

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

Ma min iktar qed jitkellmu l-maġistrati?

Wara id-diskors tal-bieraħ ta’ Robert Abela li fih infurmana illi kellu diskursata ma’ Maġistrat bil-fors li nistaqsu: imma ma min iktar qed jitkellmu l-Maġistrati? Jitkellmu fuq it-tul tas-sentenzi biss jew fuq affarijiet oħra ukoll? U l-imħallfin ma huma qed jitkellmu ma ħadd?

Huma mistoqsijiet li bil-fors nistaqsu. F’soċjetà demokratika għandna dritt għal tweġiba ċara.

Għax Robert Abela, b’dak li qal saħħaħ l-eżistenza ta’ dubji kbar fil-proċess ġudizzjarju kollu. Diġà hemm id-dubji kbar u bli qal ħoloq dubji ikbar milli diġà hawn.

Il-messaġġ tiegħu hu wieħed ċar li meta jrid jikser ir-regoli u qiesu ma ġara xejn.

Tinħtieġ tweġiba ċara: x’inhu jiġri?

Forsi l-President tar-Repubblika, jekk ma jkunx imsiefer, ikun jista’ jagħtina risposta!

Inkwetanti li Robert Abela jiltaqa’ ma’ Maġistrat

It-Times online u l-Independent online huma u jirrappurtaw id-diskors ta’ dalgħodu ta’ Robert Abela jirreferu għal laqgħa li Robert Abela qal li kellu ma’ Maġistrat.

L-Independent tgħid hekk: He said that he had the occasion to speak to a magistrate, who told him that the legal framework permits them to give low or high punishments. But, the magistrate said that when they give a high punishment, even though the law allows it, “they appeal and the chances are that the Court of Appeal would reduce the punishment as there are policies or past judgements that militate that punishments not be that high.”

It-Times tgħid hekk: He said that over the past few days he met a magistrate who told him that whenever a tough punishment was handed down, the sentence was inevitably watered down on appeal, with the appeals court citing caselaw.

Newsbook min-naħa l-oħra irrapporta hekk: Hu qal li din il-ġimgħa tkellem ma’ Maġistrat li stqarret miegħu li meta jingħataw pieni ħorox, il-Qorti tal-Appell tnaqqas din il-piena.

Dan il-kumment tal-Prim Ministru Robert Abela jeħtieġ spjegazzjoni immedjata għax hu inkwetanti ħafna. Minn meta l-hawn il-Prim Ministru jiltaqa’ ma’ Maġistrat u jitkellem dwar is-sentenzi? L-affarijiet mhumiex ċari u huma inkwetanti ħafna meta politiku jiltaqa’ ma’ membru tal-ġudikatura.

Min hu jew min hi l-Maġistrat ma nafx imma naħseb li l-Prim Imħallef għandu jara daqsxejn x’ġara.

Anke l-President tar-Repubblika li fost l-inkarigi tiegħu imexxi l-Kummissjoni għall-Amministrazzjoni tal-Ġustizzja għandu l-obbligu li jindaga mingħajr dewmien.

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

Inħarsu l-art agrikola: kollha

Tul is-snin il-Gvern dejjem kien fuq quddiem fil-ħidma biex tinqered il-biedja. Kontinwament il-Gvern jagħmilha iktar faċli biex art agrikola tingħata għall-iżvilupp. Huwa l-Gvern li kontinwament jidentifika art agrikola tajba għal toroq ġodda (mhux meħtieġa) inkella biex jestendi toroq eżistenti.

Il-White Paper li ippubblika iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa l-Ministeru tal-Agrikultura, intitolata Riforma fil-Qasam tar-Raba’  tfittex li tirregola l-assalt tas-settur privat fuq l-art agrikola. Imma ma issemmi xejn dwar l-assalt li għaddej mis-settur pubbliku: dak għall-Gvern hu aċċettabbli! Imma m’għandux ikun għax ir-raba’ kollha teħtieġ li tkun imħarsa.

Awtoritajiet eżistenti, bħall-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar, diġa għandhom il-poteri bil-liġi biex jieħdu passi u ma jħallux l-art agrikola tinbidel f’art għall-picnics jew għall-barbeques! Imma tul is-snin din l-awtorità ma għamlet xejn minn dan. Għalqet għajnejha.

Id-Dipartiment tal-Agrikultura imbagħad, dejjem jispiċċa jiddefendi id-deċiżjonijiet tal-Gvern favur il-qerda tar-raba’ għal toroq inutli. Is-Central Link hi waħda mill-aħħar eżempji li miegħu aħna familjari. Hemmhekk raba’ saqwi f’Ħ’Attard inqerdet fl-interess tal-karozzi. L-għixien ta’ numru ta’ bdiewa inqered. L-anqas ħoss mill-awtoritajiet fid-Dipartiment tal-Agrikultura ma nstema’ biex jiddefendu lill-bdiewa li laqqtuha.

B’dawn it-tip ta’ awtoritajiet li mhux kapaċi jaħdmu, x’sens hemm fil-ħolqien ta’ iktar awtoritajiet bħalhom? Mhux aħjar li jitneħħew is-sriep mill-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar u mid-Dipartiment tal-Agrikultura u flokhom ikunu ngaġġati persuni kwalifikati u motivati biex jaħdmu? Għax jekk l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar u d-Dipartiment tal-Agrikultura jitħallew jaħdmu sewwa, bi tmexxija tajba u kapaċi, parti mdaqqsa mill-kontenut tal-White Paper ma jkunx hemm ħtieġa għalih!

Lejn l-aħħar tas-sena 2021 l-Imħallef Wenzu Mintoff, f’deċiżjoni tiegħu dwar applikazzjoni kostituzzjonali fuq raba’ fil-Qrendi kien emfasizza li l-valur realistiku tar-raba’ għandu jkun rifless ta’ dak li l-istess raba’ tista’ tipproduċi. Dan hu punt li l-White Paper tibni fuqu meta titkellem dwar il-valur esaġerat li r-raba’ qed jinbiegħ jew jiġi stmat kif ukoll dwar kif għandha tkun ikkalkulata l-valur tal-qbiela. Il-White Paper fil-fatt tipproponi li l-qbiela għandhom ikunu 1.5 fil-mija tal-valur realistiku tar-raba’. Għad irridu naraw, iżda, kemm dan kollu ser jiflaħ għall-battalji legali li inevitabilment ser ifaqqsu da parti ta’ min ma jridx din ir-regolamentazzjoni.

Punt interessanti li joħrog mill-White Paper hi l-introduzzjoni ta’ taxxa li hu propost li titħallas fuq ir-raba’ li ma tibqax tintuża għal skop agrikolu. Din il-proposta hi simili għall-proposti tal-partit tiegħi dwar taxxa fuq propjetajet vojta liema proposti saru f’diversi manifesti elettorali tul is-snin.  

Safejn niftakar, din hi l-ewwel darba li l-Partit Laburista qed jipproponi li jagħmel użu mit-tassazzjoni bħala għodda biex jilħaq oġġettiv politiku: f’dan il-każ il-ħarsien tar-raba’.  Ma naħsibx li din il-proposta partikolari ser timmaterjalizza u dan minħabba li l-Partit Laburista kontinwament jitkellem b’ċerta qawwa kontra l-użu tat-tassazzjoni bħala strument politiku fi kwalunkwe forma. Imma l-fatt li l-proposta qed issir, minnu nnifsu hu pass tajjeb.

Il-proposti fil-White Paper fuq ir-riforma meħtieġa dwar ir-raba’ huma l-ewwel pass lejn diskussjoni serja u matura. Imma għadhom il-bogħod  minn dak li hu meħtieġ.  

L-ewwel pass għandu jsir biex ikun stabilit element ta’ rieda tajba. B’dan il-ħsieb nistieden lill-Gvern biex jippreżenta mozzjoni fil-Parlament biex iħassar l-eżerċizzju ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni approvat mill-Parlament fl-2006 u li permezz tiegħu eluf ta’ metri kwadri ta’ raba’ spiċċaw tajba biex jinbnew. Naħseb li l-Ministru tal-Agrikultura tal-lum, Anton Refalo, għandu l-kredibilità biex jagħmel dan il-pass. Hu wieħed mill-ftit Membri Parlamentari li għadhom fil-Kamra u li fl-2006 kienu ivvutaw kontra li din l-art tingħata għal-iżvilupp. Għamel dan flimkien ma sħabu tal-Grupp Parlamentari Laburista ta’ dakinnhar!

Bħala t-tieni pass il-Ministru responsabbli mill-Ippjanar għall-Iżvilupp tal-Art jista jħaffef ftit il-pass li bih għandhom ikunu reveduti r-regoli dwar id-diżinn għall-iżvilupp rurali (Rural Design Guidelines). Forsi, ma tafx kif, jingħalqu darba għal dejjem it-toqob fir-regoli, li bihom qed ikun imħeġġeg l-iżvilupp fil-kampanja.

Imbagħad, kieku dan kellu jsir, il-Gvern ikun kredibbli fil-proposti li qed jagħmel dwar il-ħarsien tar-raba’.  Għax ir-raba’ kollha teħtieġ il-ħarsien mingħandna. Dan hu meħtieġ dejjem, mhux biss meta jkun politikament konvenjenti.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: il-Ħadd 9 t’Ottubru 2022

Protecting agricultural land: all of it

Over the years government has been actively at the forefront in the assault on agricultural land. It continuously makes it easier for agricultural land to be developed. It also takes up good quality agricultural land in order to develop new (and many times unnecessary) roads or else to extend existing ones.

The White Paper published earlier this week by the Ministry for Agriculture, entitled Agricultural Land Reform seeks to control the private sector assault on agricultural land. By omission, the assault being carried out by the public sector is being deemed acceptable!

Existing authorities like the Planning Authority already have the legal powers to stop agricultural land being transformed into picnic or barbeque areas. Yet it has done nothing to stop this over the years.

The Department of Agriculture always ends up defending the uptake of good agricultural land by Government for unnecessary roads. The Central Link is one of the latest examples as a result of which naturally irrigated agricultural land at Attard was destroyed in order to make way for more cars. The livelihood of a number of full-time farmers was destroyed. Not even a whimper from the authorities at the Department of Agriculture was heard.

Faced with existing authorities which are not functioning properly what sense does it make to create more authorities, as proposed by the agricultural reform White Paper? Would it not be better to remove the snakes from the Planning Authority and the Department of Agriculture and replace them with suitably qualified and motivated personnel? If the Planning Authority and the Department of Agriculture are allowed to function properly, with suitable leadership and expertise, most of the contents of the White Paper would not even be required!

Towards the end of 2021 Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff, in his decision on a constitutional application relative to agricultural land at Qrendi had emphasised that the realistic value of agricultural land ought to be a reflection of what that agricultural land can produce. This is a point validly taken up by the White Paper when discussing the value currently being attached to agricultural holdings. The White Paper also proposes that the rental value of agricultural holdings should be determined at 1.5 per cent of their realistic value.  It remains to be seen whether and to what extent these limitations on the determination of value and rental value will be able to withstand the legal assault which will inevitably follow once the White paper proposal in this respect is implemented.

An interesting point made by the White Paper is to introduce a tax on agricultural land which is not being used for agricultural purposes! This is similar to the proposals which my party repeatedly brought forward relative to taxes on vacant dwellings!

This is the first time, as far as I can recollect, that the Labour Party is proposing the utilisation of taxation as a tool to attain a political objective: the protection of agricultural land. I do not however think that this proposal will materialise as the Labour Party has been vociferous over the years against the use of taxation as a political instrument in any form or shape. However, it is positive that the proposal is being tabled.

The proposals in the White Paper on agricultural reform are definitely a first step towards a mature debate. They are however very far from what is required to protect agricultural land.

The first step should be to establish an element of good faith, which is currently inexistent. In this line of thought I would invite government to present a motion in Parliament to cancel the rationalisation exercise approved by Parliament in 2006 as a result of which thousands of square metres of agricultural land all over the islands were defined as being suitable for development. I believe that the current Minister for Agricultural, Anton Refalo, has the credibility to do it. He is in fact one of the few remaining Members of Parliament who way back in 2006 had voted against adopting the rationalisation exercise, together with the rest of the then Labour Party Parliamentary Group!

As a second step the Minister for Land Use Planning could accelerate the revision of the Rural Design Guidelines, thereby closing the loopholes which continuously encourage the urbanisation of the countryside.

Only then, maybe, can government be credible in its proposals to protect agricultural land. All agricultural land needs our protection. This is required all of the time, not only when it is politically convenient.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 9 October 2022