Opposition spokesman on education and civil rights Evarist Bartolo yesterday declared that the Maltese Parliament was weak in its autonomy and served only as an instrument in the hands of the executive.
Speaking during the debate on the estimates of Heritage Malta and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, he said the priority was not for the government to borrow money to build a new building but for parliament “to be built from within” and be active “even if it functioned from a tent”.
Parliament needed to be a co-legislator in the EU. He said that the Maltese parliament was among the least to give its share in the European fora.
Mr Bartolo said that the country still lacked a national cultural heritage strategic plan. Strategic restoration plans and a cultural management plan for Valletta were also lacking. A number of projects in Valletta had been launched. Cultural experts believed that lack of management plans led to changes being carried out in a chaotic way. One of the greatest challenges was to have a sense of priority in safeguarding the national and local heritage.
He said he was satisfied with the persons engaged to work on the project for Malta as European capital. He accused the government of lack of goodwill on this issue as regards cross-party collaboration. He added that this same lack of goodwill led to the failure of the House Select Committee.
He criticised the government for failing to publish the State of Heritage Report for 2009 – 2010. He said that this report had to be more analytical and critical giving a true picture of how things were. MPs were only given the balance sheet for the heritage superintendence for the debate.
The superintendence had been working with lack of human and material resources with the capital and operational budget for 2009 being the least during the last seven years. It employed 11 persons when its full complement was supposed to be not less than 30 in order to cater for the 10 different functions it had to perform.
Mr Bartolo asked what results were achieved under the objective presented last year to make heritage sites socially inclusive. He said that whole sectors of the population were still unaware of this heritage and its importance. Local councils had to be guided and supported in their initiatives to promote local heritage sites.
Mr Bartolo also asked whether the government had ratified the 2000 Florence EU convention on landscaping and the 2005 Faroe Islands Council of Europe convention on cultural heritage for society. He emphasised that Malta needed to implement the landscape convention because the countryside and coastline were under threat.
Mr Bartolo said that promises in the 2008 budget had not been kept. These included a reduction in VAT for cultural activities and leave of absence for public officials participating in cultural projects. He asked whether the VAT measure was not implemented because it was in breach of EU law.
Mr Bartolo concluded that although enthusiasm was welcomed standards and guidelines were needed for heritage activities. More commitment was also needed in the private public partnership on heritage.
Opposition spokesman on culture Owen Bonnici said that it had taken the government years to publish a draft cultural policy... and this had only come about as a result of Malta possibly becoming the European cultural capital by 2018. The opposition believed that this was a very important project which if successful would positively change Malta’s cultural landscape.
Culture and heritage were only prioritised by the government according to needs of the moment. However, it was positive to note that Heritage Malta had recently been given a financial uplift. This organisation was now functioning without being in the red.
It was not acceptable that for this sector the government only presented reports relating to finance. Such reports showed that only €200,000 had been spent on the restoration of Fort St Angelo.
This was quite a small sum when the government had spent €63,000 on a first class ceremony to celebrate the setting up of tents over Mnajdra and Ħaġar Qim. These tents had cost €4.7 million and it was important that people acknowledged that these were required.
It was unacceptable that a large sum of money had been spent in 2005 to restore the Domus Romana, only for new works to be carried out six years later to redo part of the work.
The opposition had greatly emphasised the need for a creative economy. Although the government had placed this at the forefront of the budget, not much work had been done to sustain these aims.
Dr Bonnici asked whether the government had submitted the architectural plans to justify the buildings recently built in Valletta which were threatening this city from remaining a world heritage site. The government should realise that the creation of an open air theatre to replace the former Royal Opera House was a mistake. Noise interruptions would disrupt shows.
Concluding, Dr Bonnici urged that the heritage and cultural sectors be given the right resources to enable them to function.