Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/228261
13 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 15 DECEMBER 2013 A combative Michael Falzon defends his role as chair of the committee which drew up a draft policy to regulate the fireworks industry, arguing that the document represents a bold step forward in safety standards h fireworks Falzon had contributed to that report himself. Interestingly enough, it was criticised at the time along very similar lines to the criticism which resurfaced this week: namely that it seemed heavily influenced by the practitioners' interests, to the exlcusion of other concerns. Even the fact that it was never actually implemented was viewed as an example of the political muscle wielded by the same lobby. And at a glance the new policy seems to provide further confirmation of a scenario in which successive governments have been too reluctant to address safety concerns because of political pressure. This brings me to one of the more contentious proposals: namely the proposal to create an 'ad hoc' com- mittee in order to evaluate applications before they are screened by MEPA. This seems to fly in the face of standard procedure, whereby MEPA – a supposedly independent, autonomous entity – determines the entire planning process after consulting with all the relevant persons and authorities. Apart from duplicating this process and multiplying the bureaucracy involved, there are more serious potential pitfalls. An ad hoc committee giving 'advice' on planning applications might be contrued as an attempt to exert pressure on MEPA boards, in order to ensure approval of developments which already have the seal of approval of a government appointed body... Falzon once again chides me for being 'too negative'. "No, you've got it all wrong. The committee doesn't work that way. It's an added extra precaution. Let me put it like this. Building a fireworks factory isn't like building a house. There are technicalities and considerations that do not apply to other developments. This committee is just there to draw up plans and to offer expertise and advice. Once it passes its recommendations to MEPA the application will still have to go through the full gamut of the planning process. The ad hoc committee will not in any way usurp MEPA's jurisdiction." How does he envisage the committee's composition? "I'm not the responsible minister, so I have no say in any of that. But if you ask me it would include representatives of the police, the Armed Forces, the Civil Protection Department, amongst others." All along, however, there are question marks surrounding his own role in chairing the consultative committee: namely that he is now drawing up a framework policy to regulate an area in which he is himself involved, in his capacity as representative of the official pyrotechnics association. Does he not acknowledge that this constitutes a clear conflict of interest? "Absolutely not. I answered this question at the press conference; looks like I have to answer it again. I have never been involved with the association. I have only given it legal advice... and I did the same when I assisted [former ministers] Tonio Borg and Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici. I am not an expert in the matter, but I do happen to know something about fireworks. I was happy to assist whenever I could over the past 20 years. Does this mean I have had a conflict of interest for 20 years?" Some might say... yes, it does. Falzon naturally disagrees. "And just to make it clear: I never received any remuneration for my advice." It remains debatable whether financial remuneration has any actual bearing on the definition of a conflict of interest; but in any case Falzon insists on a flat denial throughout, and there is little point in pressing further.