|
The MTA’s head resigns, the former head of the MHRA asks the minister to resign, and Francis Zammiit Dimech reaches out with a new tourism consultative body – just what a new way of doing politics should be like
There’s no single coyness about Francis Zammit Dimech’s dismal portrayal by hoteliers and tourist operators who have called for his resignation in recent months. As the summer of 2006 turns out to be one of the hottest in terms of climate, but not in the level of arrivals for the industry, the tourism minister has come under attack from a vociferous sector which have demanded his head on a plate.
 In return, Zammit Dimech’s answer to his detractors was to create another ad hoc committee – this time the tourism consultative board – and appoint former MHRA president Winston Zahra Jr, Kevin Decesare and Michael Zammit Tabona to the board. Magnanimous? Winston Zahra has already presented a first condition that the hoteliers will need the necessary funding to turn around the situation. He has even promised that his role on the consultative board will not silence him. For Zammit Dimech, keeping everybody happy in the tourism industry appears to be far less easier than getting everybody to talk at the same table.
Not that talk wasn’t the order of the day – apart from the overbearing presence of the tourism operators on the Malta Tourism Authority, the Prime Minister also chairs an inter-ministerial committee on tourism. For all the talk of reforms at the MTA, Zammit Dimech’s personal choice for executive chairman of the authority Romwald Lungaro Mifsud, departed earlier than expected in August with the half-believable claim that his mission had been “accomplished”. Chairing over the worst year in arrivals for the tourism industry, Lungaro Mifsud – long berated by people like Winston Zahra, who even called for his resignation – will be resigning the MTA with his payslip intact, a guaranteed income until March 2007.
On top of it all, Zammit Dimech has to contend with the dragging conundrum over low-cost carriers, faced with calls for the massive onslaught that Irish giant Ryanair promises Malta, and on the other side, a bid to protect national airline Air Malta from the ruthless cut-price seats of the feared LCC.
Zammit Dimech, a long serving Cabinet minister and electoral heavyweight, acknowledges the crucial need to introduce LCCs to the island. “Low-cost travel is a new travel trend to which the country has not yet adapted. If a potential tourist uses the websites of the major low-cost carriers to see where they want to travel, that person is lost for Malta, because the only way we can be reached is by air. These travellers are growing exponentially, and that means Malta is losing these tourists.”
The problem is there is much disagreement over the scale with which LCCs should be allowed to enter the Maltese market. While the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association have been vociferous in calling for a four-plane Ryanair base in Malta, along with easyJet, the national airline has been pouring water over all expectations that the influx of tourists can either be high or sustainable.
“I disagree there is a question of disagreement,” Zammit Dimech says over differences in government over the role of LCCs. “This is one government and acts as one government,” he chips in. “We obviously bring with us our different perspectives when we sit around the table, but ultimately we all have one national interest.”
But the issue has been taking too long, having already missed the bus for Ryanair’s outing on Maltese soil which had been earmarked by the airline to start later this year.
“We took longer than I wished. The reason is that it’s a complex issue, and not one that was crying out for a simplistic solution. The simplistic solution demanded of by some people was to have LCCs come on a massive scale to Malta without taking into consideration the impact this would have on other factors.”
Indeed, Ryanair toyed with the prospect of basing six airplanes at Malta International Airport, a strategy that Air Malta claims would displace up to 50 per cent of its passengers. The ensuing cuts in workforce would be clamorous. But the MHRA claims Air Malta has manning problems independently of LCCs.
“I don’t think it be correct to go in the specifics of one proposal or another. But to make Malta totally dependant on any LCC would certainly mean that in the short term Malta would be beyond its carrying capacity, in other words a boom. That I accept… in the short term. But in the long term it would be suicidal for the tourism industry. In the long term it would mean that with such great dependency, a situation will be created where a LCC with a dominant position would be able to squeeze any conditions it wishes from the government and the tourism stakeholders. The industry would be at the total whim of the LCC in question, because it can choose to reduced flights or pull out of Malta altogether as has been the experience in other countries. Without the healthy mix of tourism sources, it would not just signal the end of the national carrier, which would be fatal for tourism, but also have effects on other legacy carriers such as Alitalia and GB Airways and tour operators, which would pull out of Malta.”
Zammit Dimech pours scorn over allegations in l-orizzont, which he keenly points out is owned by the General Workers Union “which is in cahoots with the Malta Labour Party”. According to the newspaper, the routes which had been previously issued by government for which LCCs were expected to tender their interest in operating, had not been successful. “Day in, day out, l-orizzont has a very clearly agenda of undermining confidence in the tourism industry. I think it is a totally politically biased newspaper. It is a totally dishonest report because it refers to schemes issued by the MIA over a year ago and which are no longer relevant, and it is only until reading the very end of the report does on realise that the front page report does not refer to the present call.”
Irrespectively of the negative press, Zammit Dimech has to contend with the dismal state of the Maltese product and the cynical reaction of the general public to a Lm500,000 campaign to “brand” a sense of ownership into the Maltese people for the so-called “product Malta”.
“We have done our utmost to revamp product Malta and I can give you a list of places we have upgraded to improve our product. Of course, there are still many areas which have to be spruced up and which have to be kept in the condition it is presented to the general public.”
What about cleaning the island up? Who has to shoulder the responsibility for the tourism industry? “Of course this is an issue that is addressed through the inter-ministerial committee. This ministry only takes care of beach cleaning. But when we talk of product Malta we have to give special attention to cleanliness. Having said that, I do not wish to undermine the responsibility of each and everyone of us in this respect – we cannot divide people between those who are civic-minded and those are not.
“In fact I am amused at the reaction of some people at the Brand Malta campaign, which is precisely that of asking why they should share in this responsibility, or telling us not to disturb their peaceful frame of mind… We know it is our responsibility to improve various aspects of product Malta, to present it in a more acceptable manner to the visitor, for one simple reason: Malta faces competition which is much more stiffer than it was ever before.”
But how does Zammit Dimech with the general feeling of scepticism about the entire campaign? Is it because the prospect of branding product Malta, onto some of the more intransigent players in the tourism industry, where service comes without a smile, and where bus drivers are among the least cooperative with tourists, stands out as being totally unrealisable? Or maybe it’s because the island is in the constant flux of construction and demolition, an endless stream of cranes plaguing some of the country’s main tourist spots?
“We should always a situation where an individual avoids their responsibility due to the errors of others. It be wrong of me to throw litter out in the street just because it is dirty. Now, do you say is this an awareness campaign or a branding campaign? Well, a brand has to be owned, by 400,000 people in this case, to succeed. Now we will never achieve that. There will be some people who will deliberately choose not to be part of this campaign. But we are trying to increase the people who want to take ownership of the brand.
“Equally, we cannot postpone our responsibility. I cannot say I won’t do my part since the road outside is in a shambles. I would have a legitimate right to pressure government into doing up the road.”
But with the approval of more development zones, ergo more construction and development, how can anyone say that the Maltese government can be inspiring the general public to take ownership of this brand? Isn’t this what the tourist will see?
“Yes, it is something the tourist will see, and it affects this ministry, because when there are construction sites next to hotels it obviously causes great inconvenience. This is a country that is faced with difficult decisions: do you stop all construction?”
There had been a guideline to stop construction in major tourist zones… somehow that got thrown away amid the euphoria of new development zones proposed by the government.
“To a large extent we have enforced that, because there have been many instances where this ministry has stopped words by governments and public entities in major tourist zones, unless they are emergency works that cannot be postponed until the winter.
“Having said that, it was not a guideline applying to the private sector. I think it should apply for the private sector, and we have now made representations with MEPA over the conditions for a development permit. And we have been supporting the ministry responsible on the issue of new building regulations, with respect to the tourism zones, to have people working on these sites to take care of their neighbours. In other words, construction in itself is not necessarily wrong, provided there is proper hoarding and shielding, provided that noise pollution is kept under control, and that the least inconvenience possible is created.”
But it’s no wonder why Zammit Dimech comes under fire for his management of the tourism portfolio. Since announcing his magnanimous resignation from the MTA for allegedly accomplishing his mission as executive chairman, Romwald Lungaro Mifsud has left the authority with a guaranteed salary until March 2007. Lungaro Mifsud is effectively being paid for doing nothing, so was this really a resignation – or did the government sack Lungaro Mifsud from his position?
“He has resigned within the context of what has been evolving in the past months and following discussions between him, myself and the Prime Minister,” Zammit Dimech says, referring to calls by Winston Zahra Jr for the resignation of the beleaguered Lungaro Mifsud, whose name was rejected three times by Zahra and other tourism players on a board set up to oversee the reform of the MTA’s structures. Zammit Dimech pushed his rank and went for Lungaro Mifsud, much against the wish of tourism’s big men.
“What we are doing with regard to Romwald is not without precedent. There have been similar situations in the MTA in the past, and there have been similar situations even within the tourism industry in general.”
One of these situations would have been the payment of a GBP55,000 out-of-court settlement to its overseas director for northern Europe in London, John Montague, after Montague sued MTA over “constructive dismissal”. The ministry claimed Montague himself tendered his resignation, having been employed on a salary of approximately Lm10,000 per annum as senior manager. While the ministry had not terminated his appointment, the settlement was decided upon the unequivocal advice of their UK solicitors.
“It is normal, correct and ethical practice to sit with an outgoing person and reach an amicable settlement according to what the contract of the person in question would have stipulated,” Zammit Dimech states.
So, an amicable settlement would mean that he did not, in effect, resign at all.
“No, he has resigned,” the minister says. “Of course he has resigned. If he had wanted to stay on until March he could have stayed on.”
But if he did resign, his contract should have expectedly been terminated, as is general practice.
“I don’t think we are at a stage of trying to discuss this issue in strict legalistic arguments,” Zammit Dimech says. “We are discussing the issue in its much broader context. He has offered his resignation, we have accepted it, but on our part we have offered to honour, for ethical reasons, the contract until the end of its term.”
But what is ethical about paying somebody who is choosing to effectively relinquish his salary if they are resigning their post? Isn’t the government being careless with taxpayer’s money?
“I don’t think the government is being careless. I think it is being very responsible. I think the government is seeing the broader picture, which factors in the obligations that had been entered into with a person who has given his utmost to the authority during his chairmanship, saving the authority hundreds of thousands in administrative expenses which are now ploughed into marketing.”
So this is a thank you gift for Romwald Lungaro Mifsud?
“It is an expression of gratitude, but not without context. It is an expression of gratitude within the context of an agreement that was in force, as simple as that. Resignations do not happen in a vacuum. Even if you look at the private sector internationally, it is within the context of a handshake you make at the end of the day.”
Isn’t it a dangerous precedent for the public sector?
“Not necessarily. I think each and every case should be seen on its own merit. And quite frankly, I think it is within the interest of one and all to close this chapter, because we should not make an issue out of a non-issue, since we are talking of a minimal amount of money anyway which will not affect the tourism industry.
“Mr Lungaro Mifsud could have chosen 14 months ago not to take on such a role when he had such a successful career in tourism. Who is saying the government is doing a favour to Lungaro Mifsud? It was the other way round.”
|
