(M)ore (L)acklustre (P)olicies

The suspension of parliamentary sittings last week, due to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), allowed me to reflect on the stance adopted by opposition speakers during the parliamentary debates on the government's financial estimates.

The interventions made by Labour deputies served to highlight the harsh reality that they are an ill-prepared and unconvincing opposition incapable of forming an alternative government.

One cannot help thinking that the Malta Labour Party is still reeling after its twin defeats at the polls in 2003, having failed to win the majority of the electorate, both in the EU referendum and the general election. Henry Ford once said: "Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently". But this philosophy of life is surely lost on the MLP!

The MLP lacks a serious programme of action. This lethargic outlook is in sharp contrast with the Nationalist Party in government, which has a clear programme of what needs to be done. Alfred Sant's own admission of adopting a policy of tbazwir (confusion and bending of rules) is clear proof that the MLP is totally bereft of ideas and sterile of creative policies that Malta needs in a globalised scenario. If there were any need for evidence to prove the vacuum of ideas that exists within the MLP their recently launched policy document on the environment shows its lacklustre policies - and in some instances, the total lack of - insofar as the environment goes.

Yet again, this is another anonymous report, unsigned as if the author was ashamed of what he wrote. What is even sadder is that the MLP's Environment Policy For Malta - orphaned at its very inception - is a regurgitation of things which my government has either already carried out or is in the process of doing. There is not one single new proposal or fresh idea.

The report does not state how some of the mentioned targets will be achieved. Indeed, it is merely a wish list which disregards the work and results the government has achieved over the past years. It would seem that not even the MLP itself is convinced of its environmental policy because the media release announcing the launch contains a disclaimer, stating that the policy document will not necessarily be binding on a future Labour government!

This ill-famed report targets Mepa, calling for an in-depth evaluation of its operations. But the MLP does not indicate how or in what way will they "evaluate" Mepa and what changes are they proposing. Aren't they aware that, earlier this year, we carried out a detailed analysis of the development permit application (DPA) evaluation process? Moreover, we appointed a change implementation team - with vast representation of all the stakeholders involved - to implement all the proposed changes to the system so that the public is given a better and more effective service.

This stands out against the MLP's only proposal about Mepa, which is that the government should have a "wider power to review any decision (or decisions...) taken by the authority..." To me, this is one of the few clear things in this report: a nasty flashback to the 1970s and early 1980s - when decisions on planning permits were arbitrarily taken by Labour Cabinet ministers. Is this the deep evaluation being proposed by the MLP for Mepa?

The MLP report also refers to what it terms as "reliable and continuous environmental monitoring". Again, more clichés without a concrete plan of action. The MLP report does not even acknowledge the fact that over the past three years Mepa has been carrying out air quality monitoring through two stations - one based in an urban area and one in an industrial area. These stations will be enhanced by a further three, thanks to EU funding. Yet the Leader of the Opposition himself, no less, actually took the government to task saying it is still studying proposals on how to carry out environmental monitoring!

Another lacklustre proposal in the MLP report refers to environmental law enforcement. It states that "it is crucial to strengthen those structures intended for the proper enforcement of environmental legislation". But it does not say how this is going to be achieved. Which entities or structures will be entrusted with this enforcement? In what way do they intend to fund such initiatives? What legislative amendments - if any - do they intend to carry out? Once again, more lip-service - nothing more!

When the report tackles the polluter pays principle, it not only shows the MLP's political opportunism but also exposes how their arguments are devoid of any analysis. What the Maltese people want to know is not that the MLP is in favour of this principle (although even this is quite an achievement, bearing in mind the way the opposition lambasted the introduction of the eco-contribution last year!). We would all like to know the way they would introduce such a principle. What parameters would be adopted? Which entity or structure would be leading? How will the whole process be implemented?

The report is peppered with other instances where the MLP clearly shows it does not even know what is happening as the things they are proposing are already being done! These issues vary from environmental education to land reclamation and to closed quarries to be used for inert waste. Alternative energy sources, sewage treatment, organic farming, afforestation, animal welfare, development of golf courses, fish farming and waste treatment are other topics referred to in this report - and I am using the word "referred to" as these are only mentioned in principle. No tangible details, just platitudes... nothing more!

All this is in stark contrast with the way this government has tackled the environment, with a total expenditure rising from Lm11.6 million in 2005 to an estimated Lm15.9 million in 2006, an increase of 37 per cent. This spending will allow us to consolidate and enhance the projects we have embarked upon over the past year or two.

One final "pearl of wisdom" from the MLP's policy document: the Gozo airstrip. In this report, this is clearly and unequivocally ruled out as being environmentally and aesthetically unacceptable. But it seems that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark" as Labour Gozitan MP Anton Refalo said in Parliament he is in favour of such a development. Please, do us a favour: Can you agree what exactly it is you are proposing? Ah, but I forgot, this report is not binding! Pity that running a country is...

Mr Pullicino is Minister for Rural Affairs and the Environment.