The golden handshakes must be transparent

It has been reported, in various sections of the press, that Justyne Caruana, former Minister of Education, has received, or will be shortly receiving payment in the region of €30,000 as a result of her ceasing to hold political office. This has occurred after she was forced to resign subsequent to the publication of a damning report from the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life which report concluded that the Ministry of Education, under her political direction, had screwed the exchequer to benefit her “close friend”.

Since 2008 holders of political office who cease to occupy such office have received golden handshakes, substantial sums which some describe as severance pay. The sums disbursed to date are substantial and, over the years, are said to be close to a total of €1,500,000. Holders of political office in receipt of such payments are not just members of Cabinet, as payments have also been made to former Leaders of the Opposition throughout these years.

The applicable criteria are largely unknown. There is no transparency whatsoever in the process.

There is a serious issue of governance.  The Executive is bound to be accountable through ensuring that both the criteria applied as well as the monies disbursed are well known. It is an expenditure from the public purse, so there should be no secrets about it. It is in the public interest to know how the public purse is being managed at all times.

First: the objectives of the payments should be crystal clear. When holders of political office take up their post, generally, they take leave from their current employment or close their private offices if they are professionals. Their job prior to assuming political office may be lost by the time they relinquish office. On the other hand, losing contact with their professional environment will generally place them in a difficult position to reintegrate when their term of political responsibilities draws to an end. 

Hence the objective of these so-called golden handshakes is to compensate for the fact that the holder of political office cannot go back to his/her former job or professional environment. He or she will generally have to start from scratch or almost. Not all cases are identical and hence the criteria drawn up should allow for some leeway. Do they? We do not know as to date these criteria are considered as some state secret!

The objective of the payments made is to ease the transition of the holder of political office back to a normal life.

The second point is to establish who should apply these criteria. From what is known through reports in the media the matter is regulated by the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), either directly or through the Cabinet office. This is not on.

Ideally the criteria should be applied by an authoritative person or body separate and distinct from the OPM. The OPM has a finger in the pie, generally, in all the circumstances leading to the appointment to political office or to the dismissal therefrom. It should therefore not be in a position of sugaring resignations with promises of generous hand-outs.

The third point is then to establish the quantum payable.

From what is known, locally, this is established at a month’s salary for every year’s service, subject to a minimum payment of a six-month salary. It is not known whether eligibility is pegged to a minimum period in office.  These payment rates are substantial when compared to those in other jurisdictions. In addition to having smaller payments other jurisdictions subject such benefits to a minimum period in office, generally of not less than one year.

There are also a number of other serious considerations which need to be made. Should loss of political office as a result of an unfavourable election result have the same impact as being dismissed from office or being forced to resign as a result of unethical or unacceptable behaviour?

Specifically, should ending your political appointment in disgrace be rewarded? It should definitely not be so.

These are some of the issues which transparency brings to the fore. We need to discuss them seriously and only then can they be applied ethically and fairly.

It is for these reasons that earlier this week I have requested the Auditor General to investigate the golden handshakes being paid out by the Office of the Prime Minister to former members of the Cabinet. The payments made and the criteria applied should be examined meticulously.

Good governance should be our basic guide.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 9 January 2022

Wara r-riżenja ta’ Justyne

Issa Justyne irriżenjat għat-tieni darba mill-Kabinett ta’ Robert Abela. Il-Kabinett ta’ Abela, l-ikbar wieħed fl-istorja, naqas bi tnejn, Justyne u Rosianne.

Meta irriżenjat Rosianne ma kien daħal ħadd ġdid fil-Kabinett.

Kif diġa għidt, il-każ ta’ Justyne għadu miftuħ, mhux biss għax il-Kumitat Permanenti tal-Parlament dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika għad irid jiddiskuti r-rapport (m’għandux għaġġla) imma ukoll għax hemm riżenji oħra li jeħtieġ li jsiru.

Frank Fabri u Paul Debattista huma mistennija li jwarrbu ma jdumux. Tal-ewwel għax iffirma l-kuntratt abbużiv u illegali u tat-tieni għax kien hu li iffaċilita dan il-qerq kollu billi kiteb ir-rapport li għal xi żmien kien qed jingħad li taparsi kitbu Daniel Bogdanovic u b’hekk ikun jista’ jsir il-ħlas ta’ ħmistax-il elf euro.

Minn kif tkellem Robert Abela jidher li m’għandux għaġġla biex jaħtar Ministru flok Justyne. Dan isaħħaħ ix-xniegħa, li issa ilha ftit ġranet għaddejja, li mhux biss ġejja reshuffle tal-Kabinett dalwaqt, imma li hu ippjanat ukoll li jinbidlu diversi f’karigi mlaħħqin.

Ma ninsewx ukoll li f’Jannar, xahar ieħor, għandu jibda jinstema l-ġuri dwar il-hold-up li falla fuq l-HSBC. Intqal diġa li f’dan il-ġuri jistgħu jsiru rivelazzjonijiet dwar membru ieħor tal-Kabinett ta’ Robert Abela. Din tista’ twassal għal riżenja oħra!

Nistennew u naraw.

Il-Milied it-Tajjeb

Wara Justyne: nistennew issa r-riżenja ta’ Frank Fabri

Ir-riżenja ta’ Justyne kienet inevitabbli.

Setgħet iddum ftit ieħor taħsibha, imma kienet fir-rokna, ma kelliex minn fejn toħroġ.

Din hi t-tieni riżenja bħala riżultat tar-rapporti tal-Kummissarju għall-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika. L-oħra kienet Rosianne Cutajar!

Li tirriżenja darbtejn mill-Kabinett fi 23 xahar, kif għamlet Justyne, naħseb li hu record. Juri li l-ġudizzju ta’ Robert Abela li jagħtiha ċans ieħor kien wieħed żbaljat għall-aħħar.

Ir-riżenja ta’ Justyne mhiex il-konklużjoni. Għad hemm iktar : ir-riżenja ta’ Frank Fabri, Segretarju Permanenti li approva l-kuntratt ta’ sieħeb Justyne, Daniel Bogdanovic, issa hu iktar meħtieġa minn qatt qabel.

Fil-ġlieda għall-governanza tajba, fil-ġlieda kontra l-abbuż u l-korruzzjoni, iċ-ċivil għandu rwol importanti. Is-segretarji permanenti għandhom sehem kruċjali f’din il-ġlieda. Min minnhom jonqos li jaghti sehem mhemmx post għalih. Min jiffaċilita l-ħmieġ għandu jitwarrab minnu fih

Il-kosta tagħna lkoll: inħarsuha

Għaddej sforz kontinwu biex il-kosta tkun ikkommerċjalizzata. Sforz li ilu għaddej is-snin.

Il-jott marina proposta f’Marsaskala hi biss eżempju wieħed minn bosta li mhux limitati għan-nofsinnhar politiku, iżda li huma mifruxa mal-pajjiż.  Fost l-eżempji hemm it-Terminal tal-Port Ħieles, Manoel Island, il-Bajja tal-Balluta, ix-Xatt u l-jott marina tal-Birgu, il-jott marina fil-Kalkara u x-Xatt tal-Belt.  

Hemm ukoll għaddej il-kummerċjalizzazzjoni tal-ispazji pubbliċi mal-kosta, bil-bankini b’kollox.

L-art pubblika kontinwament qed tkun trasformata f’minjiera ta’ profitti privati, ħafna drabi għall-magħżulin. Il-kwalità tal-ħajja tar-residenti rari jagħtu każ tagħha, jekk mhux fl-aħħar minuta. Meta possibli jevitawha kompletament ukoll.

Għaddew madwar erba’ snin minn meta l-Parlament approva il-leġislazzjoni biex tissaħħah il-protezzjoni tal-kosta permezz tal-liġi dwar id-dimanju pubbliku. Kellna kemm-il Ministru li tkellem b’mod pompuż dwar dan. L-għaqdiet ambjentali ippreżentaw lista ta’ iktar minn għoxrin sit, mifruxa mal-kost,a li kollha kemm huma jikkwalifikaw għall-protezzjoni. Ninsab infurmat li l-għaqdiet ambjentali għamlu riċerka estensiva dwar min hu sid din l-art. Iżda sfortunatament l-Awtorità tal-Artijiet u l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar qed iżommu dan il-proċess milli jitwettaq, anke għal dawk il-każijiet fejn l-art hi kollha kemm hi propjetà pubblika.  

Għalfejn jiġu approvati dawn il-liġijiet jekk ma hemm l-ebda intenzjoni li dawn ikunu implimentati?

Nafu li wieħed mill-impatti ewlenin tat-tibdil fil-klima fuq il-gżejjer, inkluż dawk Maltin, hu bit-tibdil fl-livell tal-baħar. Numru ta’ gżejjer fl-Oċejan Paċifiku li mhumiex wisq il-fuq minn livell il-baħar diġa bdew jisparixxu taħt baħar li l-livell tiegħu qed jogħla. Robert Abela, Prim Ministru, huwa u jindirizza l-laqgħa Internazzjonali fi Glasgow dwar it-tibdil fil-klima (COP26), iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa, emfasizza dan il-punt.

L-għoli fil-livell tal-baħar ikollu impatt sostanzjali fuq il-gżejjer Maltin, skond kemm dan ikun kbir. Jeffettwa l-infrastruttura kostali kollha: l-infrastruttura marittima, dik tat-turiżmu, tal-ilma kif ukoll l-infrastruttura tal-enerġija li huma kollha b’xi mod marbuta mal-kosta. Kemm-il darba jogħla l-livell tal-baħar dawn kollha jitħarbtu.  Anke iż-żoni residenzjali viċin tal-kosta jsofru impatti mhux żgħar.  

Ħadd ma jaf eżatt dwar kemm, kif u meta dan ser iseħħ. L-ewwelnett għax il-proċess li bih dan iseħħ għad mhux mifhum biżżejjed. Imma ukoll għax għalkemm ma nistgħux nevitawh nistgħu nnaqqsu l-impatt tiegħu billi nindirzzaw u nnaqqsu l-emissjonijiet tal-karbonju.

Repetutatament fil-laqgħat tal-UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change) li jsiru regolarment tul is-snin, kien hemm emfasi fuq il-ħtieġa li ż-żieda fit-temperatura globali minn kif kienet fl-era pre-industrijali ma tiżdiedx b’iktar minn 1.5 gradi Celsius. Dan sar fuq insistenza tal-istati gżejjer u tal-pajjiżi sottożviluppati, għax għal snin twal il-limitu raġjonevoli kien meqjus li kien ta’ 2 gradi Celsius. Pass ieħor il-quddiem. Imma mhux biżżejjed.

F’Pariġu fl-2015 kien hemm qbil dwar dan kollu. Imma sfortunatament dan ma kienx ikkonvertit f’azzjoni. Huwa dak li issa qed nistennew li jseħħ fi Glasgow.

Huwa essenzjali li nindirizzaw it-tibdil fil-klima bis-serjetà. Anke l-ħarsien tal-kosta jiddependi minn hekk.

ippubblikat fuq Illum :il-Ħadd 7 ta’ Novembru 2021

Claiming back (and protecting) our coast

A continuous effort to commercialise the coast is under way. It has been going on for quite some time.

The proposed Marsaskala yacht marina is just one example. It is possibly the latest of many examples, not just in the political south, but throughout the Maltese islands. The Freeport Terminal, Manoel Island, Balluta Bay, the Birgu Waterfront and yacht marina, the Kalkara yacht marina, Valletta Waterfront are some of the most glaring examples which come to mind.

There is also the ongoing commercialisation of the public spaces adjacent to the coast, including pavements and open spaces.

Public land is continuously being transformed into private profits, many times for the chosen few. In practically all cases,the quality of life of residents is not factored in, until the eleventh hour. Whenever possible, it is avoided completely.

It has been around four years since parliament approved legislation in order to reinforce the protection of the coastline through the public domain legislation. Much was said pompously by many a Minister. Environmental NGOs have submitted a list of over twenty sites along the coast which qualify for protection. I am informed that eNGOs have even carried out extensive research on ownership issues related to these sites. It is indeed unfortunate that the Lands Authority and the Planning Authority have ground the whole process to an unacceptable halt. This applies even in those instances where it is proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that the land in question is public property.

Why approve such laws when there is no intention to implement them?

We are aware that one of the main areas through which climate change will impact islands, including the Maltese islands, is through sea level rise.  A number of low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean are already in the process of disappearing below a rising sea level.  Robert Abela, Prime Minister, addressing the Glasgow Climate Change COP26 earlier this week emphasised this point.

A rise in sea level will have a substantial impact on the Maltese islands, depending on its extent. It will impact the coastal infrastructure: the maritime, tourism, as well as the water and electricity infrastructure are all linked to our coast. A sea level rise will play havoc with all this. It will even impact the residential areas which have been developed close to the coast.

No one is certain as to when, how and the extent of this happening. Primarily this is due to the fact the natural processes in play are not fully understood yet. It is also however possible that mitigation measures planned and in hand to reduce carbon emissions could be quite effective if taken up.

During UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change) meetings it is continuously emphasised that the increase in global mean temperature should not exceed 1.5 degree Celsius over the pre-industrial temperature. This is the result of extensive lobbying by island states and under-developed countries over the years. They have been successful in adjusting the objective from the previous 2 degree Celsius.  This is definitely a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. 

In Paris in 2015 this was already agreed upon. Yet it was all words, none of which was converted into action. At Glasgow we need some decisions which are implemented the soonest.

Taking definite action on climate change is required to protect our coast.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 7 November 2021

A fixed-term Parliament

At this point in time, within the party we are discussing our electoral Manifesto for the forthcoming general election. When will it be held: shortly or much later? At the time of writing no official announcement has been made. Maybe by the time this article is printed matters would be clear.

When presenting proposals for the consideration of the ever-pending Constitutional Convention, we had as a party considered the matter in some detail: should the Prime Minister have the discretion to advise on the dissolution of Parliament?  This was one of the “rights” of Kings and Queens which have been inherited by Heads of Government as a result of democratisation. Since independence it has been the Prime Minister’s right in Malta to advise that Parliament be dissolved and that an election be called.

Over two years have now elapsed since we proposed to the Constitutional Convention that Parliament should have a fixed term and that the election date should be fixed.

Such a provision is normally associated with the American experience on the first Tuesday of the month of November: every alternate year electing the House of Representatives, every four years for electing the President and for electing a third of the Senate every two years.

In the United Kingdom the Liberal-Conservative coalition had in 2011 introduced a fixed-term Parliament Act as a result of which, for the first time ever, the Prime Minister’s role in determining the date of dissolution of Parliament and the subsequent holding of a general election were severely curtailed.

Nick Clegg, then Liberal leader and Deputy Prime Minister had, in piloting the relevant act in Parliament, described such a move stripping Prime Ministers of the power to pick election dates to maximise party advantage as a profound reform. He further emphasised that such a reform was essential to restore faith in politics.

The introduction of a constitutional provision for a fixed-term Parliament would entail removing political self-interest from election timing.

Of course, all Prime Ministers, with tears in their eyes, plead national interest whenever they make use of this discretion.

It would be interesting if we could have an explanation as to what “national interest justification” exists for having a snap-election in Malta at this point in time. Robert Abela’s justification could be as follows.

The first reason to justify a snap election is that come January 2022 a criminal jury relative to the failed HSBC hold-up is scheduled. Possible revelations could spot-light the alleged role of senior Labour Party politicians in the planning of this failed hold-up. Probably Robert Abela thinks that having clear information as to who was involved in planning the HSBC hold-up is not in our interest. It is definitely not in the interest of the Labour Party as it could unmask the Labour Party for what it really is: an eye-opener to some!

The second reason to justify a snap election is the turbulent energy market which could play havoc with the costs to generate electricity locally. Given that we import gas through a contract which is to expire shortly, the price of gas used at Delimara to generate electricity will probably sky-rocket. Alternatively, we use the interconnector to tap energy generated on the mainland. The use of the interconnector was very recently curtailed due to the substantial increase in the price of the energy available!  A substantial increase would impact government finances negatively and Robert Abela would prefer not to have this fact in the public domain during an electoral campaign.

The third reason would be the impacts of grey-listing which are bound to increase with time. The longer it takes to take action as per the agreed road-map with the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) the more the impacts. Labour cannot divorce itself from this. They think that having an election out of the way would at least shield Labour from more electoral impacts of grey-listing.

Having a snap election could potentially shield the Labour Party from these and other impacts which could have a substantial political fallout. The snap election will not address these problems, it will just postpone them into the future.

A fixed-term Parliament would do away with all this. Instead of trying to avoid problems it is better to address them head-on.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 24 October 2021

Technocrats in Cabinet

It is being argued by some that the Prime Minister should have the possibility to appoint technocrats as members of Cabinet.

As things currently stand, there are several posts servicing government departments which should be filled by technocrats but are instead seeing appointment of persons of trust, that is persons who are in the good books of politicians.

How about ensuring that technocrats are appointed where it matters before dreaming of having technocrats in government?

On a final note, we have had three technocrats appointed to Cabinet recently. The first two were responsible for many a mess! I am referring to Edward Scicluna and Konrad Mizzi. The third one, Clyde Caruana is still works in progress!

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

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!