Last week you questioned the effectiveness of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development, an important tool for employers, union and government to discuss the country’s problems and seek a compromise on the issue…
All I said was: let us not pretend that the MCESD is a decision-taking body. The social partners discuss but then it is the government that decides. MCESD is just another parliament. The trade unions and employers come to MCESD meetings with a view of protecting their members as much as possible.
The government comes with a view of protecting the national interest, something which the unions and employers rarely do. At MCESD no one wants to take the harsh decisions because they might affect their own members. When I say this everyone gets hot about it. It’s the truth.
The MCESD was originally conceived as a forum where social partners and government would, without pointing fingers, discuss issues which are of national importance and where we can find solutions to common problems. I can’t only look at things which protect my members, but I have to give solutions in the national interest. As it is now, the MCESD is more of a parliament than a decision-taking body.
So you’re saying that MCESD is just a talking shop?
That’s it. When we were discussing the energy crisis, a good number of the members were worried about how it would affect their members rather than look at it in the broader perspective of how it will affect the country. Ultimately, it’s up to the government to decide. A talking shop without decisions remains a talking shop.
Do you intend closing down MCESD?
No. I think we are, to a certain extent, too Mediterranean. You either want to participate in a discussion followed by a decision and take responsibility for it or else leave it up to the government to decide but then don’t complain about it. Don’t say that you want to be on MCESD in the national interest. If your job is to protect your members, OK, do it. You know you have an interest but then don’t say that the interest is the national interest. Decide what you want to do. For me MCESD is more of a parliament than a decision-making body.
Leo Brincat recently said that the way you conduct your duties, and the brash and abrasive manner with which you run your ministry, make you Labour’s secret weapon. What are your comments about this?
It’s a nice comment coming from Leo. My style is not like anyone else’s. I think my style is not as soft as Leo’s. We are not in a popularity contest here. My job is to deliver and I am being somewhat successful.
About being Labour’s secret weapon, everybody says that Alfred Sant’s is the Nationalist Party’s secret weapon.
How does it feel being the only minister who was involved in each and every political controversy in Malta? Does this mean you’re doing your job properly or can it mean that you are taking hasty decisions without weighing the consequences?
First of all I am not the only minister who has been in the centre of controversies as you are claiming. There are other ministers who have taken decisions which were not popular and so they attracted a lot of criticism.
Fortunately or unfortunately – I will leave it up to you and your readers to decide on this – I have been assigned with a difficult ministry, tackling the issue of privatisation. It is a very contentious issue. I have never been involved in a controversy involving information technology, for example, because it is not a hot subject. I have a ministry which has to take decisions – most of the time difficult ones – which affect people directly, so it is obvious that you are criticised.
Politics is all about taking decisions and if you don’t take decisions, then you are not a politician and are not fit for a ministerial position. You cannot be in politics if you don’t have a vision. A minister needs to have a vision. I am in politics because I have a vision and not just because I like being a minister. It’s not a question of being involved in controversies. It’s a question of having a vision and taking decisions in line with that vision which would also be the vision of the political party in office.
As to your second part of the question, I do not like judging myself. I leave that for other people. Secondly, I do not think that I am taking or have taken hasty decisions. The internal decision taking process within my ministry is long and every angle is explored. We go through a number of different levels, discussed by a group of people with whom I work a lot. I never take decisions on the spur of the moment, especially decisions which affect people’s lives drastically.
It suffices to mention just one example: following the controversy surrounding the privatisation of Sea Malta, we published a 900-page document which was the whole decision-making process and the various options we looked at and explored.
You recently stated that the manufacturing industry has no future in Malta because it is no longer sustainable in view of competition from China and India. Do you still stand by these comments and what can be done to make it more sustainable?
I did not say that. Those are not my precise words. I said Malta cannot retain low-end, high-volume manufacturing simply because it is not sustainable. There are stark realities which are making manufacturing in Malta unsustainable. We are not a cheap labour country anymore.
Today Malta is specialising in short-term orders because this is our niche market. This is the kind of manufacturing we need. We cannot go for low-end, high volume and high cost. Textiles are one example of low-end, high volume industry.
More than 4,000 jobs were lost in the manufacturing industry in the last four years in the manufacturing of textiles and these workers moved on to other jobs. In contrast, we are attracting the manufacturing of telecommunications and electronics, for example.
This is the way globalisation works. We can’t continue defending certain jobs but we also have to ensure that the workers are trained in new skills. The reality of job mobility is here to stay and we cannot continue to hide behind platitudes and a fake sense of security.
The shipyards in Malta, for example, are being outbid by Croatia and Turkey, whose pays are 60 per cent lower. Their prices are a third of ours. What can we do? Eventually, we have to downsize again. It’s inevitable that this is going to happen so I’d rather look at it now than wait for it to come along and then tackle the issue from a position of defence.
Sea Malta: Do you still think that privatising Sea Malta was the best option and what difference will Grimaldi Lines make to the company?
Of course I think that privatising Sea Malta was the best option. Why should we continue defending a company which has two rickety boats rather than entrusting the company in the hands of a firm that specialises in this business and which employs thousands of people to operate its large fleet of sea vessels?
All Sea Malta did in the past was transport roll-on cargo to and from Malta, accounting, maybe, to 0.5 per cent of Malta’s imports and exports. 99.5 per cent of our imports and exports are on private sector ships. So what should be done? We have to ensure that it gives Malta a service. Now, whether it is operated by the public or private sector is another issue. But the bottom line is that Sea Malta has to provide the country with a service which is sustainable and worth running.
Was Sea Malta giving Malta a service?
Of course it was….at a loss of a million (liri) a year.
But why did the government see the need to change this now and not several years ago when the company started registering losses?
I can’t tell you why not five or 10 years ago but it is only in the last two years that Sea Malta has gone into a deficit. Sea Malta lost a total of Lm6 million in the last five years.
OK. Let’s change subject. What is the future of the film industry in Malta? Are there any big names coming to Malta in the near future to shoot their films?
There are a number of negotiations under way and I can confirm that there are big, well-known producers who are looking at Malta as the ideal location where to shoot their films. There is a lot of interest in Malta.
The next big step is to change the idea of Malta as simply an ideal location base and to get private investors to see the potential of shooting films in Malta and invest in film facilities in Malta. This is the way forward because there is cut-throat competition.
In the 2006 budget, we allocated Lm1.5 million for the film industry. What we have to do is attract as many producers as possible, even those we never heard of before because even these leave a lot of revenue. We only need a Spielberg once every two years. We need to attract low-cost and low-budget producers who come here regularly.
What are the advantages of Malta as a location base?
There are lots of advantages. We are neither expensive nor cheap. We are realistic in our prices. Strangely enough – and I’m sure your readers will smile when they read this – the feedback we get from producers is that Malta is the least bureaucratic country where they can shoot films. Since Malta is so small, we are able to cut corners.
The sun and the good weather are other factor s that attract producers as well as other factors such as that the price of accommodation in Malta is cheap, everywhere is close so not much has to be spent on transport and we have lots of skilled and technical people.
I think it’s a bit of a mix. Apparently, Malta is one of only four countries which gives direct cash incentives such as refund of Value Added Tax.
What is the future of the Public Broadcasting Services Limited?
We are saving a lot of money at PBS. We reduced the subsidies from Lm2.25 million to just Lm500,000 and the company is still doing extremely well. The ratings are still sky high and the viewership has increased.
We still have problems in the management sector – we are still without a head of news and the chief executive officer has to be changed. However, the financial results for this year are looking pretty good. In 2003, PBS made a loss of around Lm150,000 and this year we are expecting to make a small loss of between Lm10,000 and Lm20,000.
Will you ever publicly admit that the tipping off of Vanessa Macdonald by your ministry as the prospective news manager at PBS was a mistake and that the government could have dealt with the matter better?
We certainly could have dealt with it better and with more style. My decision was simple. I struck off the list those people who applied from Net TV and Super One, not because I have anything against them but because I thought that this would not have been good for the credibility of the national station. Yes, it’s true that my decision was not backed by my Prime Minister but we don’t agree on everything you know.
I excluded Charles Flores as well, who was head of news in the 1980s. He took the case to the Ombudsman who said that he was right but I still did not retract my decision.
What is happening now?
Sylvana Cristina, who was the programmes manager at PBS is discussing her remuneration with management. Vanessa has more experience in the field of journalism but the plus for Sylvana is that she has been in broadcasting for a lot of time. Sylvana is more of a television woman, something Vanessa is not. Vanessa would have fit in perfectly and I still stand by my first decision to choose her.
Who is better for the job of head of news, Vanessa or Sylvana?
Vanessa.
What is happening in the IT sector in Malta? Is the digital divide really being tackled?
We are consolidating what has been started in recent years. We have a very big programme, changing the way we operate – a lot of work internally rather than externally. Next year we have a very vast programme prepared in the field of IT for which we allocated Lm10 million. We have a number of technical challenges for 2006 such as a computer system for Mater Dei.
Yes, I think we are tackling the digital divide. I mean, we’re doing what we can. We won’t eradicate it completely but the results are very encouraging.
Low-cost airlines want subsidies to operate in Malta. Is the government prepared to give what they are asking for?
Yes, we are prepared to give them good rates to bring tourists but we are focusing on the lean months, when Malta does not have that many tourists. We cannot afford to get many more tourists in the summer months because we are nearly full. What we need to do is get more tourists from destinations which are still untapped, and this has to be done by all airlines and not just low-cost – countries such as Portugal or Spain from where not many tourists come. We need tourists in the lean months.
Is the government going out of its way to protect Air Malta and its hefty fares rather than give Maltese and possible tourists the opportunity to come or leave Malta on a low-cost flight?
We are not protecting Air Malta but we have to be sensitive to what we need.
We cannot fail to mention the energy crisis and the cost of oil. Where does Enemalta buy its oil from and has it ever considered changing supplier?
We issue a tender once every six months or once a year – depending on the demand – and we negotiate prices after big companies such as Total, Shell and Elf submit their tenders to provide oil. It’s not a question of changing supplier. It’s all about the cost of oil abroad.
In 2006, the gas sector will be liberalised. What difference will this make and what are the benefits for government and the consumers?
In 2006 we will start the process. But the liberalisation will depend on whether the Malta Environment and Planning Authority will give us the permit to move out of Qajjenza. For the consumer, it won’t make much of a difference because the price will remain as is but the efficiency of the company will improve.