PN’s visionless vision | Carmelo Abela

Carmelo Abela is a Labour MP

After being given an additional 50 days after the end of September to prepare a response to Malta Vision 2050, one expected something truly exceptional from the Nationalist Party. Yet, while replete with lovely photos, the PN’s reaction about the document is truly visionless.

In the section devoted to the key strengths of Malta Vision 2050 one finds that “it sets ambitious, measurable targets”. Then in the press release issued by the PN to accompany its reaction it stated that “the vision for Malta’s future needed to be more ambitious”.

The case becomes even more complicated because on page 6 of its reaction, the PN argues that Malta Vision 2050’s “economic and social targets are ambitious yet potentially unrealistic”. There you have it, a new mystery of the trinity. For the PN, Malta Vision 2050 is ambitious, not ambitious enough and too ambitious.

On page 4, the authors of the PN reaction state that “the strategy emphasises quality of life and sustainability, moving beyond GDP to focus on well-being, inclusion and environmental stewardship”. In the press release for the reaction, instead we are told Malta Vision 2050 needed to “be based on striving for quality rather than quantity”.

Again, on page 4, we are told that Malta Vision 2050 “prioritises innovation and human capital through educational reform, skills development, and investment in future-oriented industries”. On page 7, however, “goals are set without addressing Malta’s structural weaknesses in productivity, education outcomes and social mobility”. Instead of a symphony, the PN regaled us with a cacophony.

On the one hand, the PN believes that “Envision 2050 successfully integrates sectoral strategies under a unified national vision, aligning economic, social, environmental, and governance priorities”. But the same PN states that “social and urban challenges ranging from overdevelopment to housing affordability, ageing, and community integration are treated somewhat superficially, risking deeper inequality and erosion of liveability”.

And what about this gem? On page 6 we read that “Malta Vision 2050 carries some notable weaknesses which are deemed to be important to single out for attention and improvement”. On page 9 of the same report, the PN’s position is to “enshrine Vision 2050 in law”. Therefore, what is deemed a few pages earlier to be something with notable weaknesses, later is deemed so good as to merit being legislated.

What about the PN’s constructive proposals? Page 11 pontificates about the need to “ensure that big projects undergo transparent cost-benefit and environmental assessments.” One wonders why in 2025 this is not done. But wait, what about this clause in Subsidiary Legislation 549.46 titled Environmental Impact Assessment regulations: “Before any consent is given for a project likely to have significant effects on the environment due to, inter alia, its nature, size, scale, position or location, such project shall be subject to a requirement for development consent as well as an assessment of its effects on the environment in line with these regulations.”

Page 15 of the PN document talks about the need to “introduce statutory Gozo Impact Assessments for all major policies and permits”. Pity that the pesky Chapter 600 of Malta’s laws states as one of the duties of the Gozo Regional Development Authority the need “to ensure that a regional impact assessment, as established in Schedule II, is carried out when government ministries intend presenting to Cabinet (i) a national strategy; (ii) a national policy; (iii) a national action plan; (iv) major new projects or services; and (v) regulatory and legislative provisions, which affects or affect, as the case may be, Gozo”.

Again, on page 11, Jerome Caruana Cilia tells us that it is important to “launch a national debate on population and migration policy”.  He seems completely unaware that his colleagues Ivan Castillo and Darren Carabott just a few months ago took part in the consultation on the Malta Labour Migration Policy, and contrary to him managed to do so well within the consultation period.

Another gem is that we are told we need to “promote integration strategies that protect Maltese language and culture”. Just four days earlier, Employment Minister Byron Camilleri announced that foreign workers will need to pass a test about life in Malta before moving here; a test which includes basic phrases in Maltese.

But the cherry on the cake is the last two words: ‘September 2025’. The PN had the gall to date its document as if it had presented it in time for the end of the consultation period, even though it was presented in November. The mind boggles.