The resignation of David Thake

The resignation of David Thake is a positive step.  It takes courage to admit to having acted incorrectly and shoulder the political responsibility for your actions. There are others who should follow in his footsteps. Parliament, as a result would be a much better place.

The fact that the tax misdemeanours of the companies owned by David Thake were revealed through media leaks does not make the case any less serious. It however adds another worrying dimension to the saga: institutional breach of ethics, this time by the tax authorities. The Minister for Finance Clyde Caruana is politically responsible for this. He has to act fast to address the matter.

Registered editors already have a right to request income tax returns of sitting MPs. This right should be extended to VAT returns, not only those submitted personally by sitting MPs but also by companies in which they have a controlling interest. This would do away with selective leaking of damaging tax information which generally targets those who those close to government seek to damage or destroy!

It has been established that the two companies owned by David Thake, namely Vanilla Telecoms Limited and Maltashopper Limited have collected Value Added Tax due on their services and retained the tax collected for a long period of time. His companies, stated David Thake, had a problem with their cash flow and thus they were not in a position to pay up the taxes they had collected.

Vanilla Telecoms Limited owes the exchequer €270,000 while Maltashopper Limited owes another €550,000. This is a substantial sum which has been collected from taxpayers through VAT and includes fines and interest due for non-payment.

There are serious doubts as to whether Thake’s claim that he was simply applying the Covid-19 tax deferral scheme is correct.

Given that most of the pending VAT dues of Thake’s companies date back to substantially before the outbreak of Covid-19 Thake has yet to explain as to why it took him so much time to address the cash flow problems of his companies. He has shed too many crocodile tears in emphasising that faced with cash flow problems he opted to pay his employees rather than the VAT office. His delay in acting to address his cash flow problems has the specific consequence of endangering the livelihood of the very employees, which he is so keen to protect!

It is not correct to describe David Thake as a tax evader. It is unfair to compare him to Bernard Grech, his party leader, who was investigated for tax evasion over the years and opted to pay up on the eve of the PN leadership contest.

In view of the fact that Thake’s companies have yet to submit their accounts it is not yet clear as to the actual cause of his cashflow problems.

The point at issue is whether it is right for David Thake to bankroll his companies through the taxes they have collected as economic operators. The fact that there are others who do likewise, and maybe worse, is no consolation!  He was a member of parliament elected on a good governance platform. The mismatch between his behaviour and his stated beliefs cannot be clearer than this.  This is no minor administrative omission as David Thake emphasised when he announced his resignation.

Its fine to preach good governance. Putting this into practice is a completely different matter. Thake’s resignation, even though he took some time to decide that he should resign, puts some sense back into local politics. Thake’s resignation is a positive contribution to improve standards. Ian Castaldi Paris and Rosianne Cutajar should be next.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 16 January 2022

An invitation: keep the doors open

The abortion debate gets nastier by the minute. This was expected. It may even get worse!

The priest who described pro-choice PN candidate Emma Portelli Bonnici as a later day Hitler, kicked off this week’s instalment! The Archbishop’s Curia at Floriana forced the removal of the facebook post where he published these views: yet the damage was done. Will we ever learn to discuss anything respectfully? Is this too difficult to expect?

The Labour Party is being extremely cautious. It is very rare to hear any Labour Party speaker express himself or herself on the subject of abortion. Labour is aware of the different and contrasting views within its ranks when debating abortion. That in itself is healthy and could potentially lead to a mature debate. The current Labour Party leadership, however, as readers are aware, is acutely conservative on the matter even though there is a progressive element among its voters which is of the opposite view. This includes a couple of present and former electoral candidates and MPs/MEPs.

The PN on the other hand, going by Bernard Grech’s declaration earlier this week has not yet learnt its lessons from the divorce referendum campaign, ten years ago. I respect its political position on the matter but I still cannot understand its constant denigration of those within its ranks who have the courage to speak their mind. Stifling political debate is very damaging.  It has long-term effects which go much beyond the current debate!

As pointed out elsewhere, Bernard Grech’s declaration signifies one thing: the abortion debate is closed within the PN ranks, and anybody who dares think otherwise should start packing. From where I stand that is the clear message conveyed by Bernard Grech.

Within ADPD, the Green Party, last May, after a three year long internal debate, we approved a clear political position in favour of decriminalisation of abortion, as a result of which any woman opting for an abortion would not be subject to criminal action. We further emphasise that abortion should not be normalised but that it should be limited to specific, extraordinary and well-defined circumstances.

We have highlighted that Maltese legislation on abortion is not fit for purpose. It needs to be brought up to date after more than 160 years since its enactment. It requires to be brought in line with medical and scientific progress over the years.

We identify three such extraordinary circumstances in which abortion is justified, namely, when the life of the pregnant woman is in danger, when a pregnancy is the result of violence (rape and incest) and when faced with a pregnancy which is not viable.

There is definitely an urgent need for more emphasis on reproductive and sexual health education at all levels of our educational structures. This is a gap which needs plugging at the earliest!

We have been criticised by some as not going far enough. Others have stated that we have gone much too far.

Empathy, the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, is key in the abortion debate. It is essential that women who undergo abortion are not threatened any more with persecution and prosecution. They need the state’s protection as a result of which more will seek help before taking critical decisions. This will save lives as well as avoid unnecessary medical complications.

The abortion debate in Malta is unfortunately characterised by long periods of silence, alternating with outbursts of hate, insults and extreme intolerance. This is definitely not on. Political parties should take the lead by encouraging contributions to a clear and objective debate.

While others close their doors to the debate, ours will remain wide open.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 14 November 2021

Il-PN, Chris Peregin u l-imparzjalità fix-xandir

Il-Partit Nazzjonalista qed jilmenta dwar l-imparzjalità fix-xandir pubbliku. Anke aħna, ilna ħafna nilmentaw. Mhux illum biss. Ilna għaddejjin biha. Ix-xandir pubbliku, b’mod sfaċċat jew inkella b’mod iktar fin dejjem qeda lill-partit fil-Gvern. Il-Gvern tal-lum u l-Gvern tal-bieraħ!

Il-PN qed jilmenta minkejja li għandu l-istazzjoni tiegħu, kemm tat-TV kif ukoll tar-radju. Hemm il-gazzetti ukoll. Ma dawn żid ukoll xi palata minn xi “indipendenti”. Il-PN qed iħossa, aħseb u ara aħna li m’għandiex TV, radju jew gazzetti.

Il-PN imma għandu opportunità, kieku jrid, biex juri lil kulħadd kif ikun ix-xandir imparzjali. Jekk irid jista’ mil-lum għal għada jittrasforma in-NET, il-101 u l-gazzetti tiegħu f’mezzi fejn l-imparzjalità tirrenja. Minflok għandna propaganda partiġjana li ma tieqaf qatt.

Il-konsulent strateġiku tal-PN, Chris Peregin, xi żmien ilu ukoll kien jitkellem favur l-imparzjalità. Mhux ħafna ilu, iżda biss ftit xhur. Jekk tiftakru kien fetaħ kawża kostituzzjonali biex l-Awtorità tax-Xandir tagħmel dmirha u tara li l-istazzjonjijiet politiċi ukoll iħaddnu l-imparzjalità. In-NET u l-ONE jiġifieri.

Issa suppost li Peregin għandu l-possibilità li jinfluwenza l-mixja tal-PN lejn l-imparzjalità: biex mill-paroli jgħaddi għall-fatti!

Hemm kompetizzjoni ghaddejja bejn liema mill-istazzjonijiet hu l-iktar partiġjan! Kompetizzjoni bejn il-ONE, in-NET u TVM. Għax in-nuqqas tal-imparzjalità tax-xandir pubblika hi mmultiplikata fl-istazzjonijiet politiċi li huma għodda ta’propaganda kontinwa li m’għandux ikun hemm post għalihom f’demokrazija moderna fl-Unjoni Ewropea.

Kif għidna fil-konferenza stampa iktar kmieni illum hemm ħtieġa ta’ riforma mill-qiegħ tax-xandir pubbliku li għandu jwassal biex dan ma jibqax ir-responsabbiltà diretta ta’ Ministru iżda għandu jitmexxa b’mod li jkun indipendenti mill-Gvern tal-ġurnata. Dan jgħodd ukoll għar-regolatur (l-Awtorità tax-Xandir) li m’għandux jibqa’ dominat minn ħatriet li jsiru mill-Gvern.

Jeżistu mudelli differenti f’diversi pajjiżi fejn huwa l-Parlament li b’mod responsabbli jassigura li x-xandir pubbliku jkun ta’ servizz lejn il-pajjiz kollu u mhux lejn il-partit fil-Gvern. Dan jista’ jsir biss meta l-Parlament ma jibqax iddominat mill-PLPN izda jkun hemm spazju għal ilħna oħra.

Il-kumpaniji tal-PLPN jeħtieġ li jkunu regolati sewwa

Tal-PLPN, permezz tal-kumpaniji tagħhom tal-media, għandhom jagħtu l-miljuni lill-Kummissarju tal-VAT.  Kif jistgħu qatt ikunu kredibbli meta jitkellmu dwar il-miżuri meħtieġa kontra l-evażjoni tat-taxxa?  Mhux aħjar li jkunu huma minn tal-ewwel li jħallsu dak dovut u jagħtu l-eżempju?

Iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa konna infurmati li l-kumpaniji tal-media tal- PL u tal-PN għandhom jagħtu mal-€5 miljuni lill-Kummissarju tal-VAT. Dan l-ammont hu dovut lill-kaxxa ta’ Malta u jirrappreżenta taxxa li nġabret mill-kumpaniji tal-PLPN u nżammet għandhom.  Iż-żamma għandhom da parti tal-kumpaniji tal-PLPN ta’ dawn il- €5 miljuni jfisser li dawn ħadmu uqed jaħdmu bi flus li ma humiex tagħhom, iżda tal-kaxxa ta’ Malta. Huwa self moħbi li minnu ibbenefikaw kemm il-PL kif ukoll il-PN. Għalhekk kważi skiet perfett. Fejn jaqblihom iħokku dahar xulxin: malajr jiftehmu bi ftit kliem.

L-għaqdiet tan-negozju għamlu sew li semmgħu leħinhom u lmentaw pubblikament dwar dan it-trattament preferenzjali tal-kumpaniji tal-PLPN dwar il-ħlas tal-VAT li dawn għad għandhom pendenti. Huwa essenzjali li l-mexxejja tal-pajjiż imexxu bl-eżempju. Kif ngħidu, l-kliem iqanqal, imma l-eżempju jkaxkar.  

Il-problema iżda hi ħafna ikbar minn hekk. Xi żmien ilu l-medja kienet ikkummentat dwar il-fatt li tal-PLPN l-anqas il-kontijiet tad-dawl u l-ilma ma kienu qed iħallsu. Il-kontijiet pendenti kienu enormi.  L-aħħar informazzjoni li sibt kienet tindika kontijiet pendenti tal-PLPN u l-kumpaniji tagħhom, flimkien, għall-ammont ta’ madwar  €2,500,000. Diffiċli biex ikollok informazzjoni preċiża u aġġornata minħabba li l-ARMS tqis li din hi materja kunfidenzjali minkejja li hi materja ta’ importanza nazzjonali enormi: għax il-PLPN qed jabbużaw mis-sistema u l-awtoritajiet mhux biss qed iħalluhom imma qed jostruhom.    L- ARMS għandha l-obbligu li tittratta lill-kumpaniji tal-PLPN bl-istess mod li timxi ma’ kumpaniji oħra: trid tassigura ruħha li anke huma jħallsu l-kontijiet fil-ħin!  

Għadni ma semmejtx l-arretrati dwar il-ħlas tal-kontribuzzjoni tas-sigurtà nazzjonali u t-tnaqqis tal-PAYE għat-taxxa tad-dħul tal-impjegati tal-partiti politiċi u tal-kumpaniji tagħhom. Minn dak li ġie indikat fil-passat dawn l-arretrati jistgħu jammontaw għal miljuni kbar, avolja l-ammont eżatt tagħhom mhux magħruf!

Dan ifisser li fil-prattika tal-PLPN għandhom sors ieħor mhux dikjarat ta’ dħul li bih jiffinanzjaw il-ħidma tagħhom: għandhom kreditu fuq it-taxxi u pagamenti oħra dovuti lill-istat u istituzzjonijiet oħra. Self ieħor iffinanzjat minn dawk li jħallsu it-taxxi: self mhux dikjarat li jista’ jammonta għal madwar €10,000,000!

Kull negozju li jkollu jħallas dawn l-ammonti f’taxxa u ħlasijiet oħra jkollu jkollu inkwiet mhux żgħir. Ikun qabad it-triq tal-falliment. Jkun qed jissogra li l-assi tiegħu jittieħdu biex bihom jitħallsu l-kontijiet pendenti. Imma mal-PLPN, qiesu ma ġara xejn!

Dan kollu irridu narawh ukoll fil-kuntest ta’ xi ftehim mistur li niskopru bih minn żmien għal żmien bejn il-partiti l-kbar u x’uħud fin-negozju. L-aħħar każ hu dak tal-abbozz ta’ ftehim bejn il-Labour u Yorgen Fenech liema ftehim kien jipprovdi ħlas ta’ €200,000 għal xi servizzi. Dan bla dubju jfakkarna fil-każ l-ieħor ta’ xi snin ilu bejn il-Grupp dB u l-PN, dwar servizzi ukoll. F’kull kaz wara dawn il-ftehim hemm moħbija donazzjonijiet politiċi “taparsi ħlas għal servizzi”. B’hekk il-partiti l-kbar ikunu qed iduru mar-regolamenti dwar id-donazzjonijiet li jistabilixxu li l-valur kumulattiv ta’ donazzjoni fi flus lil partit politiku ma tistax taqbeż il–limitu ta’ €25,000 minn sors wieħed speċifiku.  

Dan kollu jipponta lejn nuqqas gravi u intenzjonat fit-tfassil tal-leġislazzjoni li tirregola l-finanzjament tal-partiti politiċi. Għidna repetutament li kemm il-PL kif ukoll il-PN kontinwament qed jagħmlu użu mill-kumpaniji tagħhom biex b’mod konvenjenti jevitaw l-obbligi tar-regolamenti finanzjarji.  

Kif wieħed jistenna, l-PLPN jiċħdu dan kollu. L-PL jinsisti li l-kumpaiji tiegħu ma daħlu fl-ebda ftehim ma’ Yorgen Fenech. Il-PN, min-naħa l-oħra jinsisti li m’għandu xejn irregolari. Imma mbagħad it-tnejn li huma ma jimxux mar-regoli. L- accounts ivverifikati tal-kumpaniji tagħhom ilhom snin kbar ma jkunu ppreżentati lill-awtoritajiet skond il-liġi. Bħala riżultat ta’ dan ma hemm l-ebda dokumenti li jistgħu jindikaw  jekk u kif il-kumpaniji tal-PLPN humiex verament mexjin sew u b’mod partikolari jekk humiex kontinwament jintużaw biex ikunu evitati ir-regoli dwar id-donazzjonijiet lill-partiti politiċi.

Hemm ħtieġa urġenti li r-regoli li bihom huma rregolati l-kumpaniji tal-partiti politiċi induruhom dawra sew. Dawn il-kumpaniji għandhom ikunu eżaminati fil-kuntest tal-Att tal-2015 dwar il-Finanzjament tal-Partiti Politiċi.  Rappurtaġġ fil-ħin hu essenzjali biex ikun assigurat li dawn il-kumpaniji ma jibqgħux jintużaw biex tinkiser il-liġi.  

F’dan il-mument il-PLPN u l-kumpaniji tagħhom ikkapparraw self sostanzjali bla ebda awtorizzazzjoni. Dik governanza tajba!

Il-PLPN ma jistgħux isolvuha din. Huma parti integrali mill-problema.

Huma biss Membri Parlamentari eletti minn fost dawk ippreżentati minn ADPD li jistgħu jibdew it-triq tat-tindif tat-taħwid li ħoloq u kattar il-PLPN.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: il-Ħadd 12 ta’ Settembru 2021

Regulating the commercial companies owned by PLPN

PLPN media houses owe millions to the VAT office.  How can PLPN be credible when speaking about measures to bring tax dodging and tax evasion under control? Would it not be more appropriate if they bring their own house in order first?

Earlier this week we were informed that the PL and the PN media houses have a combined unpaid VAT tax bill to the tune of €5 million. This amount is due to the exchequer and represents VAT collected by them and not paid to the state coffers. The retention by the PLPN of this sum of €5 million also signifies that the party media houses are making use of monies due to the national exchequer in their day-to-day workings!  It is an undeclared loan to the benefit of both the PL and the PN. Whenever it suites them, PLPN are in agreement. They are on the same wavelength. They are taking a free ride on the taxpayers back, year-in year-out.

Business is right to publicly complain on the preferential treatment meted out to the PLPN media houses on outstanding VAT payments. It is a reasonable expectation that the country’s leaders should lead by example!

The problem is however much larger than that. Some time back the media alerted us on the PLPN pending water and electricity bills too. The pending amounts due were known to be substantial. The latest available information is of a combined outstanding bill of €2,500,000. Up to date information is difficult to come by as ARMS considers it as a confidential matter, notwithstanding it being a matter of public interest due to its abusive nature.  Is it not about time that ARMS deals with PLPN companies in the same way as it deals with its other customers and ensures that they pay their bills on time?

There are also arrears due for National Insurance contributions and Income Tax deductions for employees of political parties and their companies. It has in the past been indicated that these arrears may run into many million euros even though the precise quantum is not known.

In effect this means that the PLPN have another undeclared source of finance for their day-to-day operations: an interminable credit on taxes and payments due to the state and its various institutions. Another loan financed by taxpayers in the region of around €10,000,000!

This has to be seen within the context of the underhand deals revealed from time to time between PLPN and business. The latest revelation of a possible draft agreement between Labour and Yorgen Fenech through which a €200,000 “deal for services” by the party media was planned, is a case in point. This is reminiscent of the other deal some years back between the dB Group and PN companies also for “services” by the party media. In both cases these deals are intended to disguise effective donations as “payment for services” thereby circumventing the donations regulations which impose an annual cumulative limit of €25,000 for donations to political parties from any one specific source.

Any business owing so much to the exchequer would be in deep trouble, on the inevitable fast track road to bankruptcy. Such a business would also be risking a takeover of its assets to make good for the substantial amounts due. But for the PLPN it seems that there is nothing to worry about!

All this points to a major intended deficiency of the legislation regulating the financing of political parties. It has been repeatedly pointed out that the PL and the PN are continuously using their companies as a convenient front to go around the political party financial regulatory framework.

As expected PLPN are in denial. The PL insists that its companies have not entered into a deal with Yorgen Fenech. The PN on the other hand insist that all is above board. Yet they continuously fail to play by the rules. Audited accounts for their companies have not been presented for many years. As a result, there is no way to verify whether and to what extent the PLPN commercial companies are innocent of the charges that they are being continuously used to circumvent the rules regulating the funding of political parties.

The rules regulating companies owned by political parties should be tightened up. Such companies should be scrutinised within the framework of the Financing of Political Parties Act of 2015. Real-time reporting is essential in order to ensure that such companies are not used any more to circumvent the rules.

As things stand, at this point in time, the PLPN and their commercial companies have appropriated a substantial loan without authorisation. How’s that for good governance? Another contributory factor to grey-listing?

PLPN cannot solve this. They are an integral part of the problem.

Only the election of Green MPs can clean up this PLPN mess.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 12 September 2021

PLPN : parrini tar-rgħiba

Il-pjani lokali huma 7. Il-Pjan Lokali dwar il-Bajja ta’ Marsaxlokk kien approvat fl-1995, madwar sentejn wara li twaqqfet l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar. Kellhom jgħaddu 7 snin oħra biex ġie approvat pjan lokali ieħor, din id-darba dak għall-Port il-Kbir.  Il-bqija kienu approvati f’daqqa bl-għaġġla fis-sajf tal-2006. Fl-2006 ukoll kien ippubblikat u approvat mill-Parlament dokument ieħor dwar ċaqlieq tal-linja tal-iżvilupp, intitolat “Rationalisation of Development Zone Boundaries”.

Kull wieħed minn dawn it-tmien dokumenti huwa wild il-PN fil-Gvern. Il-konsiderazzjonijiet ambjentali fihom huma nieqsa bil-kbira.

B’mod partikulari, d-dokument li ċaqlaq il-linja tal-żvilupp  ġie approvat mill-Parlament b’għaġġla kbira u bħala riżultat ta’ hekk żewġ miljun metru kwadru ta’ art li kienu barra  miż-żona ta’ żvilupp (ODZ) f’daqqa waħda saru tajbin għall-iżvilupp.

Mill-Opposiżżjoni l-Partit Laburista fil-Parlament ivvota kontra dan iċ-ċaqlieq tal-linja tal-iżvilupp, imma, wara, meta tela’ fil-Gvern ġie jaqa’ u jqum minn dan kollu. Dan minħabba li l-opposizzjoni għall-proposti kienet waħda partiġjana mhux minħabba xi viżjoni alternattiva.

Il-pjani lokali jeħtieġu reviżjoni immedjata. Id-dokument li jistabilixxi kif kellha tiċċaqlaq il-linja tal-iżvilupp għandu jitħassar u safejn hu possibli dik l-art kollha (ż-żewġ miljun metru kwadru) terġa’ issir art ODZ – barra miż-żona tal-iżvilupp.  

Fost it-tibdil meħtieġ hemm tnaqqis ġenerali fl-għoli permissibli tal-bini, liema għoli, f’ħafna każi qed itellef lill-komunità residenzjali mid-dritt ta’ aċċess għax-xemx. Dan qed inaqqas u jostakola l-potenzjal tagħna bħala pajjiż fil-ġenerazzjoni ta’ enerġija rinovabbli. Dan kollu kien injorat mill-pjani lokali.

Hemm bosta materji oħra fl-erba’ rkejjen tal-pajjiż li jeħtieġu li jkunu eżaminati mill-ġdid. Kif spjegajt f’artiklu preċedenti l-pjani lokali ma jagħtux każ tal-impatti kumulattivi tal-iżvilupp li huma stess jipproponu. Din hi materja bażika li teħtieġ attenzjoni kbira għax għandha impatt sostanzjali fuq il-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħna. Sfortunatament il-pjani lokali ftit li xejn jagħtu każ tal-kwalità tal-ħajja. Jiffokaw fuq is-sodisfazzjon tar-rgħiba.

Għandu jkun hemm kumpens jekk art li illum tista’ tkun żviluppata terġa’ lura fl-ODZ bħala art mhiex tajba għall-iżvilupp?

Xi ġimgħat ilu l-Ministru  Aaron Farrugia responsabbli għall-Ippjanar u l-Ambjent kien qal li kellu l-parir favur id-dritt ta’ kumpens. Konvenjentement l-Onorevoli Ministru injora l-fatt li l-Qorti Kostituzzjonali f’Malta kif ukoll il-Qorti Ewropeja dwar id-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem diġa kellhom kaz bħal dan fejn kien hemm talba għal kumpens. Il-Qorti Kostituzzjonali irrifjutat it-talba u l-Qorti fi Strasbourg ma ikkunsidratx t-talba f’deċiżjoni fis- 27 September 2011 li fiha iddiskutiet il-parametri legali applikabbli.

Il-kaz huwa dwar il-kumpanija Maltija Trimeg Limited u jikkonċerna 10,891 metru kwadru ta’ art li kienu fil-limiti tal-iżvilupp fl-1989 kif stabilit mill-iskemi temporanji tal-iżvilupp ta’ dakinnhar. Imma fl-1996 din l-art ġiet skedata għal skop ta’ konservazzjoni f’kuntest tal-protezzjoni tal-widien. Fil-Qrati Maltin il-kumpanija Maltija kienet qalet illi li kieku ħarġu l-permessi ta’ żvilupp l-art kien ikollha valur ta’  €11-il miljun. B’daqqa ta’ pinna imma, dan naqas għal  €230,000. Trimeg Limited kienet xtrat din l-art  €140,000.Il-Qorti Kostituzzjonali f’Malta ma aċċettatx dawn l-argumenti. Il-Qorti fi Strasbourg ma bidlet xejn minn dak li qalet il-Qorti Maltija.

Dan hu kaz wieħed biss. Il-ħsieb ġenerali iżda hu li apprezzament tal-ħarsien ambjentali qed jaqbad art fost in-nies illum li huma iktar sensittivi minn qatt qabel dwar dan.  Ħadd m’għandu jistenna kumpens għat-tibdil li jkun meħtieġ.

Din hi ġlieda kontinwa mar-rgħiba u l-ispekulazzjoni. Nafu li fil-passat, u għal żmien twil, ir-rgħiba kienet minn fuq. Ir-rgħiba fl-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art kellha żewġ parrini: il-PN u l-PL. Fl-Opposizzjoni jopponu u fil-Gvern jirrumblaw minn fuq kulħadd.  

Kemm il-PN kif ukoll il-PL ma jistgħux jindirizzaw din il-mandra fl-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art għax huma parti mill-problema: il-PLPN ħolquha, kabbruha u iddefendewha. Il-PN beda l-froġa u il-Labour sostniha.

Hu meħtieġ li nibdew paġna ġdida.  Il-linja tal-iżvilupp trid titraġġa lura u l-pjani lokali jeħtieġu tibdil mill-qiegħ. Aħna l-Ħodor biss nistgħu nagħmluh dan, għax aħna m’aħna fil-but ta’ ħadd. L-oħrajn, bil-provi wrew tul is-snin li bejn ir-rgħiba u l-kwalità tal-ħajja dejjem isostnu r-rgħiba!

Ippubblikat fuq Illum: il-Ħadd 5 ta’ Settembru 2021

PLPN have continuously sponsored greed

The local plans are 7 in number.  The Marsaxlokk Bay Local Plan was approved in 1995, just two years after the setting up of the Planning Authority. It took another 7 years to approve the next one, the Grand Harbour Local Plan. The rest were approved in one go, in a hurry in the summer of 2006. In 2006 a document entitled “Rationalisation of Development Zone Boundaries” was also published and approved by Parliament.

All eight documents above-mentioned have the PN fingerprints on them. They are certainly not green fingerprints.

The Rationalisation document in particular which was rushed through Parliamentary approval during July 2006 transformed 2 million square metres of land outside the development zone into land which could be considered for development. It shifted the development zone boundaries.

Labour, in Opposition when the rationalisation document was submitted for Parliament’s consideration, voted against its adoption only to embrace it as if it were its own once it was elected into government. Labour’s opposition was not on principle due to some alternative vision. It was pure partisan politics.

The local plans should be revisited the earliest. The rationalisation document should be scrapped and the land it refers to returned to ODZ status wherever this is possible.

Among the revisions considered essential to the local plans is a general reduction in permissible building heights which are interfering with the solar rights of our residential community. This is hampering our potential as a country to generate more renewable energy. This was ignored by the local plans!

There are various other issues spread all over the islands which require revisiting and careful analysis. As explained in a previous article the local plans fail to take into consideration the cumulative impacts of the development which they propose. This is one of the basic matters which should be considered in depth as it has a substantial impact on our quality of life.

Unfortunately, quality of life was considered irrelevant on the local plan drawing board. Only servicing greed was deemed essential.

Would any compensation be due if land currently suitable for development is relegated to ODZ status? Some weeks ago, Planning and Environment Minister Aaron Farrugia emphasised that the advice he received was in favour of compensation. Conveniently the Hon Minister failed to point out that the Constitutional Court in Malta and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has already dealt with a Maltese similar case requesting compensation. The Constitutional Court shot down the case and the Strasbourg Court considered it as being inadmissible on 27 September 2011 in a decision which discusses at some length the applicable legal parameters.

The case involved the Maltese Company Trimeg Limited and concerned 10,891 square metres of land which was within the limits of development as defined by the Temporary Provisions Schemes of 1989 but was then, in 1996, scheduled for conservation purposes as part of a valley protection zone.  The Maltese Company had previously claimed in the Maltese Courts that the land would have a value of €11 million if development permits were issued but was reduced in value to €230,000 at the stroke of a pen. The land was originally purchased by Trimeg Limited for €140,000.

The Constitutional Court in Malta had not accepted the arguments brought forward and the Strasbourg Court did not change anything from that judgement.

This is obviously just one case. The general train of thought however is that it is not a legitimate expectation to expect that the law does not change in the future. Environmental protection is hopefully on the increase as today’s men and women are nowadays more sensitive on the matter.

It is obviously a continuous tug-of-war with greed and speculation. The dreadful news of the past is that greed has for quite a stretch of time had the upper hand. Greed in land use planning has been alternatively sponsored by the PN and the PL. They oppose it when in opposition but adopt it once in government.

Neither the PN nor the PL can offer solutions to the current land use planning mess as both of them are part of the problem: PLPN created it, encouraged it and defended it. PN created the mess, PL sustained it.

It is time to start a new page. Scrap the rationalisation exercise and radically reform the local plans. Only we, the Greens, can do it, as we are in nobody’s pocket. The others have proven, time and again that they support greed at the expense of our quality of life.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 5 September 2021

Bernard Grech irid iżomm il-ħerba li ħalla Gonzi

Bernard Grech illum qal li mhux sejjer lura mid-deċiżjoni tal-Gvern ta’ Gonzi li jestendi ż-żoni tal-iżvilupp.

Xejn ġdid li ma konniex nafu!  Il-PN u l-PL bl-istess politika ta’ ibni kemm tiflaħ. Sadanittant il-ħsara tibqa’ tikber.

Il-Partit Nazzjonalista ma jitgħallem qatt!

Il-pjani lokali jeħtieġu bidla mill-qiegħ u l-art ODZ li saret tajba għall-iżvilupp tmur lura bħala art ODZ mhux tajba għall-iżvilupp. Ma jeżisti l-ebda dritt li tiżviluppa bl-addoċċ kif iridu l-PN u l-PL

L-unika konsolazzjoni f’dan kollu hi li l-membri tal-Kabinett Nazzjonalista li jmiss jidher li għadhom ma twieldux!

Marsaskala: the yacht marina strings

The publication by Transport Malta, last week, of a pre-qualification questionnaire relative to the “award of a concession contract for the design, build, finance, operate, maintain and transfer of a marina” at Marsaskala requires further explanation. What has been going on behind the scenes? Specifically, on whose initiative has the ball been set rolling? Is this part of the ongoing development spree, intended to bolster existing or planned development elsewhere in Marsaskala?

At some point the truth will come out. It would be hence much better if Transport Malta, and whosoever may be pulling the strings, to put all the cards on the table now.

The proposed Marsaskala yacht marina is tainted, even at this stage, with the general local plan defects: a lack of adequate environmental assessment. The assessment of the cumulative impacts of the various local plan proposals has never been carried out. These impacts add up and seen together they should have been cause for concern, even at the drawing board stage. Unfortunately, nothing was done at that stage to mitigate the anticipated cumulative impacts of the local plan proposals.

Those of us who have been subjecting land use planning to a continuous scrutiny, have, since way back in 2006, emphasised that the local plans were then not subjected to the emerging Strategic Environment Assessment procedures. In fact, the local plans, those still pending approval, after having been retained in draft form for some time, were rushed through all the approval stages during the summer months of 2006 specifically to avoid being subjected to the provisions of the Strategic Environment Assessment Directive of the EU which entered into force during August of 2006 or thereabouts!

The specific impacts of the proposed yacht marina will undoubtedly be eventually analysed by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which will be triggered if a planning application for the yacht marina is eventually submitted.  Legislation in force provides ample room for involvement of all, when this commences, starting off from the basic EIA terms of reference right up to the consideration of the detailed studies, and more. We have been through that many times in respect of various development proposals.

However, the cumulative impacts on the Marsaskala community, both residential and commercial, will not be carried out as that was avoided at the outset when the local plan for Marsaskala (part of the Local Plan for the South) was approved. This is the basic underlying worry expressed in not so many words by all those who have stood up to object to the sudden unexplained intrusion of Transport Malta into Marsaskala affairs. Kudos to John Baptist Camilleri, Marsaskala local councillor, for prodding the Marsaskala Local Council to stand up and be counted. The Marsaskala local council ought to have been consulted even in terms of the Local Council Act which makes it incumbent on central government and its agencies to consult with local councils whenever any initiative having local impacts is being considered.

Transport Malta is acting as an agent of central government. Government, led by the Labour Party, has conveniently distanced itself from the political responsibilities which result from the local plans , coupled with the rationalisation exercise, which have been shouldered by its predecessor in government, the Nationalist Party.  It has been very convenient for Labour to politically lump all the local plan fallout on the PN. However, sixteen years down the line, it is pretty evident that the Labour Party, in government for over eight years, has been very reluctant to handle the long overdue revision of the local plans and factoring in considerations resulting from a study of the cumulative impacts abovementioned. This is not only applicable to the local plan relative to Marsaskala, but to all local plans! It has obviously been too hot to handle.

Minister Aaron Farrugia, politically responsible for both land use planning and the environment, has been reported in the media, in the past few days, as stating that the local plan revision will start immediately after the general election, expected shortly. He has stated that the process will take around three years.  His predecessor as Minister responsible for land use planning, Ian Borg, had made some statements in the distant past about this, indicating the then parameters for a revision of the local plans. But nothing has materialised yet except his extreme reluctance to act!

I would, at this stage, remind the Hon Minister of the proposals from the Maltese Greens on the need to reverse the rationalisation exercise as well as on the urgent need to implement a moratorium on large scale development throughout the islands. These proposals have been part of our electoral manifesto repeatedly since 2006. Over-development and the building industry have to be brought under control the soonest.

It is not just about Marsaskala and its proposed yacht marina.  It is time to take stock of the ruin inflicted on these islands by a mismanaged land use planning process, by an irresponsible rationalisation exercise and by local plans which do not consider cumulative environmental impacts.

The proposed yacht marina at Marsaskala is just the latest example of this mismanagement.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 22 August 2021

Yacht marina, Marsaskala u l-ipokrezija tal-PN

Dalgħodu l-PN għamel konferenza stampa kontra l-yacht marina proposta għal Marsaskala. X’jiġifieri, qed jgħid il-PN? X’inhuma l-impatti ambjentali tagħha fuq ir-residenti.

Veru. L-anqas jiena ma naqbel ma’ din il-yacht marina.

Imma l-kelliemi tal-PN ma jafx li l-yacht marina ipproponiha l-PN stess meta kien fil-Gvern? Daħħalha fil-Pjan Lokali li dwaru m’għamilx studji ambjentali!

Ipokrezija grassa, Dr Peter Agius!