Riforma tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar

Il-Prim Ministru Robert Abela, fid-diskors tiegħu tal-Ewwel ta’ Mejju, qal li ser jagħti bidu għal riforma fil-qasam tal-ippjanar tal-użu tal-art. Ftit li xejn ta’ dettalji. Fi kliemu, imma, kien ċar li kien qed jipprova jsewwi l-ħsara li rriżultat mill-kritika li saret f’dawn il-jiem minn żewġ Sindki Laburisti. Wieħed minnhom (Christian Zammit – Sindku tax-Xagħra) irriżenja, għax xebbgħuh. L-ieħor, Conrad Borg Manché, Sindku tal-Gżira, baqa’ għaddej. Idu msaħħa riżultat ta’ rebħa fil-Qrati li kellu kontra l-Awtorità tal-Artijiet u d-deċiżjoni tagħha li tieħu lura biċċa mill-ġnien tal-Gżira biex tagħmel il-wisa’ għal pompa tal-petrol.

Bħas-soltu, l-Partit Laburista jipprova jingħoġob ma’ kulħadd. Il-Mexxej tal-Partit Laburista ifaħħar l-impenn ambjentali taż-żewġ sindki. Imma oħrajn fit-tmexxija tal-partit, fl-istess ħin, kontinwament jiddefendu lil min qed jagħmlilhom xogħolhom bħala sindki diffiċli.

Il-problema bażika tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar hi li kontinwament tinjora ir-regoli tal-ippjanar tagħha stess. Għal din ir-raġuni, din il-ġimgħa stess, il-Qorti tal-Appell ħassret żewġ deċiżjonijiet oħra tal-istess Awtorità tal-Ippjanar.

Ir-residenti, kif ukoll uħud mill-kunsilli lokali, kontinwament qed isemmgħu leħinhom kontra kull xorta ta’ deċiżjoni tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar. Il-permess għall-iżvilupp mill-ġdid tal-villaġġ tal-Mistra kien ħareġ għall-ewwel darba fl- 2013 għal żvilupp b’għoli ta’ tnax-il sular. Ir-residenti opponew it-tiġdid ta’ dan il-permess minħabba li dan mhux kompatibbli mar-regoli tal-ippjanar li huma fis-seħħ illum. It-Tribunal ta’ Reviżjoni għall-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar (EPRT) ma aċċettax l-appell tar-residenti, imma l-Qorti tal-Appell waqqfet kollox u bagħtet il-file lura biex il-każ ikun eżaminat mill-ġdid. Dan, il-Qorti għamlitu, għax ikkonkludiet li t-talbiet tar-residenti ma ġewx eżaminati sewwa mill-EPRT.

Fid-dawl ta’ din id-deċiżjoni tal-Qorti tal-Appell ikun floku li wieħed jistaqsi “il-għala, dawk li jieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet tal-ippjanar, kontinwament jinjoraw ir-regoli”? Xi snin ilu kien l- Ombudsman innifsu li wasal għall-istess konklużjoni.

Dan il-kaz mhux xi eċċezzjoni!

Nhar l-Erbgħa, l-Qorti tal-Appell, tat deċiżjoni oħra, din id-darba dwar żvilupp fil-Mellieħa. Aċċettat appell li sar mill-Kunsill Lokali tal-Mellieħa u ħassret permess ta’ żvilupp għal-lukanda (bil-faċilitajiet anċillari għaliha) liema permess kien inħareg f’żona fejn dan l-iżvilupp ma jistax isir ħlief f’ċirkustanzi eċċezzjonali. Din il-lukanda ta’ tmien sulari hi konnessa mal-interessi tal-iżviluppatur Għawdxi Joseph Portelli.

L-applikazzjoni għall-ewwel kien hemm il-parir dwarha (bil-miktub) biex din tkun rifjutata. Imma l-Kummissjoni għall-Kontroll tal-Iżvilupp ma qablitx ma’ dan u approvat il-ħruġ ta’ permess. Dan il-permess ġie ikkonfermat ukoll mit-Tribunal ta’ Reviżjoni għall-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar  (EPRT). L-EPRT l-anqas ma qabel li joħroġ ordni biex ma jsirx xogħol fuq is-sit sakemm jinqata’ l-appell. Riżultat ta’ hekk, il-lukanda li issa tilfet il-permess għax dan ġie mħassar mill-Qorti tal-Appell hi issa lesta u mibnija! Ser ikunu meħtieġa alterazzjonijiet sostanzjali u probabbilment partijiet minn dik li hi lukanda jkollhom jitwaqqgħu minħabba li dan l-iżvilupp ibbenefika minn bonus ta’ żewġ sulari extra li jingħataw għall-iżvilupp tal-lukandi! Jiġifieri dawn kellhom żieda ta’ żewġ sulari fuq dak li hu normali f’dawn iż-żoni! Dawn iż-żewġ sulari ma’ jistgħux ikunu approvati f’ċirkustanzi oħra. GħaIhekk ikollhom jaqgħu!

Dan kollu juri kemm hu possibli li bir-regoli tal-ippjanar tal-lum (anke jekk hemm bosta difetti fihom) xorta hu possibli li wieħed jasal għal deċiżjonijiet raġjonevoli kif uriet il-Qorti tal-Appell!  Ovvjament id-deċiżjonijiet ikunu raġjonevoli jekk dawk li jeħduhom ikun kapaci li jimxu mar-regoli dejjem.

L-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art hu għan-nies. Kif qed nagħtu każ tan-nies fl-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art li għandna? Jekk insegwu l-kazijiet diversi hekk kif dawn jiżviluppaw, hu ċar li dawk li huma maħtura biex jassiguraw li l-affarijiet jimxu sewwa, fl-interess tan-nies u tal-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħhom, qed iħarbtu kollox. Dan hu ċar meta wieħed jara d-diversi deċiżjonijiet tal-Qorti,mhux biss dawk li nsemmi hawn fuq, imma bosta oħra ukoll.

Huwa dan li jeħtieġ li jkun indirizzat minn riforma tal-proċess tal-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art. Jeħtieġ nassiguraw li dawk li jieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet ikunu nies kapaċi jiddeċiedu sewwa: konsistenti u skond ir-regoli fis-seħħ. X’nambuhom ir-regoli jekk b’mod konsistenti jiġu injorati?

Din hi r-riforma meħtieġa fl-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art.

pubblikat fuq Illum:14 ta’ Mejju 2023

Reforming the Planning Authority

Prime Minister Robert Abela, during his May Day speech, hinted that he will embark on a land use planning reform. His speech was very scant on details. It was however clearly an exercise in damage control after the Labour Party has faced sharp criticism from two of its own Mayors, one of whom (Christian Zammit – Xagħra Mayor) has quit the party in disgust. The other, Conrad Borg Manché, Gżira Mayor, soldiers on. His hand has been strengthened as a result of the Gżira Court case win against the Lands Authority and its decision to reduce the size of the Gżira public garden to make way for a fuel station.

The Labour Party is, as always, running with the hares and simultaneously hunting with the hounds. Party Leader Robert Abela lauds his “environmentalist” mayors. Others within the Labour Party hierarchy, however, are busy defending those who are making their life miserable.

The problem with the Planning Authority is that basically it is ignoring its own policies which it is stretching well beyond any elastic limit. Only this week, for this very reason, the Court of Appeal has cancelled two land use planning decisions.

Residents, and some local councils, are up in arms against all sorts of decisions being taken by the Planning Authority. The permit relative to the Mistra Village re-development was originally issued by the Planning Authority in 2013 for a 12-floor high-rise development. The renewal of the development permit was contested by residents on the grounds of its incompatibility with currently existing planning policies. The Environment Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) shot down the residents’ appeal but the Court of Appeal thought otherwise and sent the case back to the drawing board. The Court of Appeal has pointed out that the EPRT had not examined adequately the applicable planning policies to ascertain or otherwise the residents’ claims.

In view of this Court of Appeal decision it is pertinent to ask as to why those taking planning decisions continuously ignore planning policies? Some years back it was the Ombudsman himself who had arrived at a similar conclusion.

This is not a one-off case.

Last Wednesday the Court of Appeal delivered another decision relative to a development in Mellieħa and accepted the Mellieħa Local Councl’s appeal to cancel a development permit for a hotel with related amenities in an area where the local plan forbids hotel development, except in extraordinary circumstances. This eight-floor hotel is linked to the extensive commercial interests of Gozitan construction magnate Joseph Portelli.

The original written recommendation for a refusal of the application was overturned by the Planning Commission. The development permission wassubsequently confirmed by the EPRT. The EPRT also refused to issue an order to halt construction until the planning appeal is determined. As a result, the hotel whose permit has now been repealed is now completed! It will have to be extensively altered and possibly parts of it will now have to be demolished as the constructed hotel even benefitted from an additional two-floor bonus over and above the prevailing permissible height! These two floors are not permissible in other circumstances and will then have to be demolished.

All this proves that even on the basis of existing planning policies (which need substantial improvement) one can arrive at reasonable decisions as clearly demonstrated by the Court of Appeal, if only those running the show are capable of strictly observing the rules.

Land use planning is for people.  How are people and their needs factored in our land use planning? Following the various land use planning cases as they develop, it is clear that land use planning is hijacked by those appointed to run the show. This is crystal clear when one examines the different decisions of the Court of Appeal. This refers not just to the decisions referred to above, but to many others too!

This is what a reform of the planning process should address: ensuring that the land use planning decision takers are capable of taking decisions which are both consistent and in line with existing policy. What do we need policy for if it is consistently ignored?

This is the reform required in land use planning.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 14 May 2023

Ir-rwol tal-Membri tal-Parlament

Iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa, tlabt lill- Awditur Ġenerali biex jinvestiga l-ingaġġ tal-Onorevoli Rosianne Cutajar bħala konsulent taċ-Chief Executive Officer tal-Istitut għall-Istudji Turistiċi (ITS).

Meta wieħed jaqra l-kuntratt tax-xogħol ta’ Cutajar mal-ITS, li kien ippubblikat minn Shift News bħala riżultat tal-applikazzjoni tal-liġi għal jedd għall-aċċess għall-informazzjoni, wieħed jista’ malajr jikkonkludi li r-responsabbiltà tal-konsulenza ta’ Cutajar kien fil-qasam tal-amministrazzjoni finanzjarja tal-ITS.

Cutajar kienet mistennija li taħdem mill-viċin mas-CEO u mad-Diretturi tal-Istitut għall-Istudji Turistiċi fit-tħejjija tal-budget annwali, tas-sorveljanza u kontroll tal-kwalità, biex ikunu stabiliti miri, biex tassisti fit-teħid tad-deċiżjonijiet meħtieġa fit-tmexxija ta’ kuljum, fl-analiżi ta’ rapporti kemm dawk ta’ natura finanzjarja kif ukoll ta’ dawk li mhux, kif ukoll li tidentifika soluzzjonijiet u titjib fl-operat kif meħtieġ.

Meta hu fatt magħruf li Cutajar hi mħarrġa bħala għalliema tal-lingwa Taljana fil-livell sekondarju, hu raġjonevoli li tassumi li dan hu kuntratt biex inħoloq impieg fantażma, imħallas minn fondi pubbliċi.

Fid-dawl ta’ dan jiena tlabt lill-Awditur Ġenerali biex jinvestiga lill-ITS u lit-tmexxija tiegħu għax fl-aħħar mill-aħħar ir-responsabbiltà għal dan kollu hu tas-CEO tal-ITS. Huwa jrid jispjega dak li għamel lit-tim investigattiv tal-awditur ġenerali biex ikun stabilit eżattament x’ġara.

Il-ħolqien ta’ impiegi fantażma fis-settur pubbliku jsir biex jibbenefika lill-bażużli u jħallashom ta’ ħidmiethom f’oqsma oħra. L-impieg fantażma ta’ Rosianne Cutajar’s mhux l-unika wieħed li nafu bih. Tiftakru lil Melvin Theuma, dak li għamilha ta’ sensar biex tinqatel Daphne Caruana Galiza? Anke lilu kienu taw impieg fantażma fis-settur pubbliku, ringrazzjament għal dak li kien qiegħed iwettaq!  Wieħed jistaqsi il-għala, Rosianne Cutajar, li jiena u qed nikteb għadha Membru Parlamentari, għaliex mhiex iffukata fuq xogħolha bħala membru tal-parlament? Jidher li għandha ħafna ħin li ma tafx x’ser tagħmel bih biex tista’ tiddedika ta’ l-inqas 24 siegħa kull ġimgħa għal xogħol ta’ konsulenza lill-ITS, b’żied mal-ħin meħtieġ “għar-responsabbiltajiet Parlamentari” tagħha, u ta’ hekk titħallas €27,000 fis-sena.

Il-problema hi ferm ikbar minn hekk għax hu mistenni li bħala parti mir-responsabbiltajiet  tagħha ta’ membru parlamentari tissorvelja l-istess ITS u tara li l-Ministru tat-Turiżmu jerfa’ ir-responsabbiltà politika għall-operat ta’ dan l-istitut. Imma kif tista’ tagħmel dan jekk għandha kuntratt ta’ konsulenza li bih hi involuta fit-tmexxija tal-istess istitut? Safejn naf jien, qatt ma irtirat minn dibattitu parlamentari dwar it-turiżmu minħabba xi konflitt ta’ interess!

Il-problema mhiex ristretta għall-konsulenza ta’ Cutajar. B’mod partikolari sa mill-2013, dan seħħ fil-grupp parlamentari Laburista in vista anke ta’ emendi għal diversi liġijiet li ippermettew li Membri Parlamentari jinħatru f’karigi diversi. Kellna, per eżempju, lil Deo Debattista u lil Manwel Mallia li kienu nħatru Chairperson tal-Awtorità għall-Ħarsien tas-Saħħa fuq il-Post tax-Xogħol, inkella lil Konrad Mizzi li hekk kif tkeċċa minn Ministru tat-Turiżmu kien inħatar konsulent tal-Awtorità tat-Turiżmu fuq struzzjonijiet speċifiċi tal-Prim Ministru Joseph Muscat. Dan kien ġie stabilit anke bħala riżultat ta’ investigazzjoni li kienet saret mill-Kummissarju għall-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika fuq talba tiegħi.

Kien hemm ukoll numru sostanzjali ta’ ħatriet ta’ Membri Parlamentari bħala konsulenti f’diversi rwoli. F’ħin minnhom, kif ġie emfasizzat mill-Kummissarju għall-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika f’rapport tal-2019, tnejn minn kull tlett backbencher Parlamentari kellu jew kellha xi ħatra jew kuntratt mas-settur pubbliku.

Mhiex funzjoni ta’ membru Parlamentari li jagħti l-pariri lid-Dipartimenti tal-Gvern jew lil xi awtorità pubblika, anke meta jkun (jew tkun) kkwalifikat biex jagħmel dan.  Il-Membru Parlamentari qiegħed hemm biex jilleġisla, biex iħares il-fondi pubbliċi kif ukoll biex jassigura li l-Gvern tal-ġurnata jagħti kont ta’ egħmilu kontinwament. Dan hu obbligu ta’ kull wieħed u waħda mill-Membri Parlamentari.

Tul is-snin il-parlament wera li kien inkapaċi li jagħmel dmiru u riżultat ta’ hekk, il-Kabinett, li qiegħed jikber kontinwament b’mod esaġerat,  ħassu liberu li jagħmel li jrid, għax jaf li effettivament ħadd ma kien qed jitolbu kont ta’ egħmilu.

Il-Membri Parlamentari tagħna huma part-timers. L-impieg ewlieni tagħhom jeħdilhom ħinhom u l-enerġija tagħhom. Riżultat ta’ hekk nistgħu ta’ kuljum naraw parlament ineffettiv b’membri parlamentari bħal Rosianne Cutajar ifittxu impiegi fantażma, u dan sakemm ma tkunx qed tagħmilha ta’ sensara tassisti fil-bejgħ tal-propjetà u ddaħħal xi kummissjoni!

Wasal iż-żmien li l-Membri Parlamentari jagħmlu xogħol tal-parlament biss u xejn iktar.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : 2 t’April 2023

The role of Members of Parliament

Earlier this week I requested the Auditor General to investigate the appointment of the Honourable Rosianne Cutajar as a consultant to the Chief Executive Office of the Institute for Tourism Studies (ITS).

Reading through Cutajar’s contract of employment with ITS, made public by Shift News as a result of a freedom of information application, one clearly concludes that the main areas of responsibility of consultant Cutajar were in the areas of the financial management of ITS.

She was expected to work closely with the CEO and the Institute Directors in order to prepare annual budgets, oversea quality control, establish goals, assist in day-to-day decisions, review financial and non-financial reports to devise solutions and improvements……………

Knowing that consultant Cutajar is a trained teacher of the Italian language at secondary school level it is very reasonable to assume that this contract created a phantom job, paid for from public monies.

In view of this logical conclusion I requested the Auditor General to investigate the  ITS and its management as at the end of the day it is the ITS CEO who is responsible for this state of affairs. He should answer for his actions and explain matters to the auditor general’s investigation team.

The creation of phantom jobs at the public sector is done to benefit blue-eyed boys and girls as payment for services rendered elsewhere. Rosianna Cutajar’s phantom job is not the only one we know of. Do you remember Melvin Theuma, the guy who brokered the murderof Daphne Caruana Galizia? He too was given a phantom job in the public sector, thanking him for services rendered.

Why isn’t Rosianne Cutajar (at the point of writing still a Member of Parliament) focused on her duties as a Member of Parliament? She seems to have so much time on her hands that, in addition to her “Parliamentary duties” she can dedicate a minimum of 24 hours every week to her ITS consultancy work, against payment of €27,000 per annum.

The problem is even bigger than that, as she is expected, as part of her parliamentary duties, to monitor the ITS and to hold the Hon Minister of Tourism accountable for their performance.  How can she do this when she is involved in all this as a result of her consultancy? I am not aware that she ever withdrew from a parliamentary debate on tourism on the grounds of conflict of interest!

This problem is not restricted to consultant Cutajar. It has in fact, particularly since 2013, been generally applicable to the Labour party parliamentary group in view of the amendments to various laws which permitted the appointment of sitting MPs to various posts. We have had Deo Debattista and Manwel Mallia who were appointed as Chairpersons of the Health and Safety Authority or Konrad Mizzi who on being fired as Minister for Tourism was appointed as consultant to the Tourism Authority on the express instructions of then Premier Joseph Muscat as attested to by the investigation concluded at my request by the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life.

In addition, there have been a substantial number of other appointments of MPs as advisors in various roles. At a point in time, as emphasised by the then Commissioner for Standards in Public Life in a 2019 report, two-thirds of all backbench MPs held appointments in or contracts with the public sector.

It is not the role or function of a sitting MP to advise a government department or a public authority, even if he or she is qualified to do so.  A Member of Parliament should sit in Parliament to legislate, to protect the public purse and to hold government to account continuously. This is the duty of each MP.

Over the years parliament has shown itself to be incapable of doing its duty and as a result has left the ever-growing Cabinet free to do what it likes, knowing that no one will effectively hold it to account.

Our Parliamentarians are part-timers. Their full-time employment takes up most of their time and energies. The result is what we can all see, day in day out: an ineffective parliament with Parliamentarians like Rosianne Cutajar seeking phantom jobs, when she is not brokering the sale of properties and pocketing the relative commissions!

Isn’t it about time that Members of Parliament are full-timers?

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 2 April 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

Fil-Parlament il-lejla: x’faqar!

Smajtuh id-dibattitu tal-lejla fil-Parlament dwar is-sentenza tal-Qorti tal-ġimgħa l-oħra?

X’faqar! X’mistħija ta’ Parlament!

Il-pajjiż jixraqlu ferm aħjar minn hekk!

It-taħwida hi kbira: flok “world class medical system” għandna kaz ta’ “world class fraud” li nħolqot minn Vitals Global Healthcare u Steward Health Care u mill-Gvern Laburista.

S’issa insterqu €300 miljun!

Għadu kmieni biex wieħed jgħid x’ser jiġri u dan sakemm jinqata’ l-appell, jekk ikun hemm.

Jinħtieġu tweġibiet diversi.

Meta ser jibdew l-investigazzjonijiet mill-Pulizija fil-konfront ta’ dawk involuti? Il-Pulizija sfortunatament mhemmx ħosshom! Fejn hu l-Kummissarju tal-Pulizija Angelo Gafà?

Robert Abela, Konrad Mizzi, Edward Scicluna, Chris Cardona, Keith Schembri u Joseph Muscat: meta ser jintalbu jwieġbu ta’ egħmilhom, jew tan-nuqqas tiegħu?

Il-membri tal-Kabinett immexxi minn Joseph Muscat: ħadd ma jaf xejn. Wieħed iwaħħal fl-ieħor. Kellna Ministru tal-Finanzi (Edward Scicluna) li ma kienx jaf x’inhu jigri fil-Ministeru tieghu!

Chris Fearne min-naħa l-oħra, ħlief għal xi botta, kien kawta ħafna! Hu imħasseb dwar x’inhu ġej!

Il-parti l-kbira tal-membri tal-Kabinett ta’ Joseph Muscat baqgħu fommhom magħluq. Ħlief Varist Bartolo, li bħas-soltu jibqa’ jdur mal-lewża.

Hemm responsabbiltà politika kbira. Hemm ukoll responsabbiltajiet kriminali. Min ser iwieġeb? S’issa ħadd ma wieġeb.

Robert Abela kien skomdu ħafna huwa u jipprova jwieġeb waqt is-seduta Parlamentari tal-lejla. Inevitabilment ħarab mis-sustanza tal-argument. Sa ċertu punt wieħed dan jifhmu għax il-konsegwenzi mhumiex żgħar u għandu bżonn iż-żmien.

Għad nispiċċaw li jkollna ninvestgaw kull kuntratt li ngħata minn dan il-Gvern. Ħadma, waħda wara l-oħra.

Din hi storja li għad trid tinkiteb fid-dettall. Fl-aħħar, kull min hu responsabbli jrid iħallas ta’ egħmilu.

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

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.