BusinessToday Previous Editions

4 OPINION / NEWS 25.2.2021 I n 2008 the Chamber of Advocates published a consultative paper ex- pressing the need for regulation of the legal profession, a regulatory arch- tecture that would reflect of the signifi- cant evolution within the profession in the last several years. e Chamber has since then been vi- goorously pursuing the enactment of a new law to regulate the profession. In 2021 the Government of Malta propos- es Bill 181 in parliament, purportedly to regulate the legal profession – without any consulatation with the Chamber. Twleve years after the profession had expressed the need for regulation, the Government of Malta reacts to try and allay the concerns expressed by Mon- eyval in its report on Malta and how the legal profession constitutes a high risk to the jurisdiction. It is uncanny, but had the call by the Chamber to regulate the profession been heeded at the right time, that re- port would never have been possible. Now we need to pick up the pieces. No, Government's reaction now is no articulation of its genuine desire to heed the advice of the Chamber that the profession needs better regulation, but rather to plug, with the least possi- ble effort, the gaping holes discovered in the MoneyVal report about the pro- fession's regulation both at point of en- try and on an on-going basis. is 12 year saga has been sustained by the Chamber with perseverance and vigor – because it is necessary to ensure a strong and independent pro- fession above all else. We do not want to be perceived as a high risk to the jurisdiction; we want to make sure that those who do not conform to the professional and regulatory standards required of members of the profession today, will be sanctioned in a decisive manner. at those members who have no problem to bring disrepute on their profession should be dealt with firmly. e anomaly in all of this, is that whilst the Chamber, the professional body for the category, has been promoting higher standards of regulation for the profession, it is the state that has been pushing back – quite extraordinarily, as one would, at least in a normal jurisdic- tion, expect the inverse situation. Frankly, had Bill 181 which is purport- edly intended to regulate the profes- sion, been up to scratch, it would have been of little relevance to the Chamber whether it was the result of Chamber's or MoneyVal's pressures. e real problem is that the Bill as presented is substantively a far cry from the expecations of the Chamber for a proper regulatory structure for the profession in 2021. Indeed the Chamber is already on record stating that the bill itself is not fit for purpose. e real efforts should be placed in a full understanding of the need to regulate the profession, and then articulated in a law that evidences the genuine desire to do just that, and which only as a natural consequence addresses the shortcomings highlight- ed by Moneyval. What Bill 181 does is superficially try to deal with the latter and completely dismiss the former. e Chamber has on several occa- sions asked why have all its proposals never seen the light of day. Clearly not all members have their profession's best interest at heart and there are those who are more interested in retaining the status quo rather than having strict- er regulation and being held more ac- countable. It is uncanny that these members, who are not many in number, have, through their conduct, actually created the need for tougher and stricter regu- lation. So it is no surprise that they are the ones who are using all efforts to re- main unregulated. Bill number 181, unless amended significantly, remains, at best unfit for purpose. Not only does it fail to address the real issues within the profession, it is just as inadequate to meet the re- quirements of MoneyVal, as it is simply a window-dressing exercise without any real regulatory effect on the legal profession. It is shocking that after twelve years, this is the best attempt that the Gov- ernment could put together. Bill 181 and the legal profession Louis de Gabriele Louis de Gabriele is President of the Chamber of Advocates MATTHEW VELLA MALTA International Airport's pas- senger traffic for 2020 suffered a staggering drop of 76.1% as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and trav- el restrictions, leading to the worst traffic result and the first loss-mak- ing year for the group since the air- port's privatisation in 2002. While revenue from the company's aviation segment registered a drop of 74.8%, revenue from the non-avi- ation segment, which includes rents, parking, and VIP products, dropped 51.4%. In contrast with 2019, when MIA closed the year with profit after tax amounting to €33.9 million, 2020 ended a net loss of €4.3 million at group level. "An excellent track record in the years leading up to 2020 furnished us with resilience to face last year's unprecedented challenges. Howev- er, significant uncertainty and low consumer confidence continue to dominate the aviation environment, necessitating a continued cautious approach to cash management to bolster the company's ability to with- stand further shocks and safeguard the long-term interests of all stake- holders, whilst remaining in a posi- tion to swing into action as soon as air travel shows signs of recovery," said Malta International Airport CEO Alan Borg. The group's financial statements also show that, through a strict cost-cutting and liquidity preserva- tion programme, MIA had succeed- ed in lowering its total expenditure to €26.6 million (-28.3%) during the reporting period. Group staff costs registered a de- crease of €2.2 million (-20.2%), which resulted from the Covid Wage Sup- plement Scheme and temporary sala- ry reductions between April and July 2020, while operating expenditure decreased by €8.3 million (-31.8%). MIA reports drop of close to €70 million in total revenue for 2020 COVID-19 leads Malta International Airport to post first-ever loss of €4.3 million since the airport's privatisation in 2002

• Cover