Great balls of fire | Michael Falzon

Michael Falzon is not a man to mince his words: least of all when talking about his own lifelong passion for fireworks.

I meet the Labour party justice spokesman (and also the legal advisor of the Malta Pyrotechnics Association, as well as president of Sliema’s Stella Maris Band Club, among other positions) at Café Cordina in Valletta, where I immediately manage to ruffle his feathers by referring to fireworks makers as ‘dilettanti’.

Falzon frowns, as if to suggest that the word ‘dilettant’ doesn’t do justice to the typical Maltese pyrotechnics enthusiast.

“If you ask me, these are not amateurs. They are people who do professional work on a voluntary basis.”

Having made that point, he will continue to refer to them as ‘voluntary professionals’ for the rest of the interview. And to illustrate the professionalism with which these volunteers operate, Falzon invites me to consider how extraordinarily successful they have always been in the international pyrotechnics circuit (a circuit I must confess I scarcely knew even existed).

“This year, Hal Ghaxaq competed at an international fireworks festival (in Bilbao, Spain), and placed first. In fact, Maltese fireworks always win at international competitions – even when competing against the ‘crème de la crème’, Japan…”

He practically swells with pride as he warms to his theme, and suddenly rounds on me with a question of his own: “Can you think of any other activity at which we compete on an international level, and always win?”

I think about it for less than two seconds, and confess that… no, quite frankly I can’t.

“This is why 2010 has been such an ironic year,” Falzon continues, shaking his head sadly. “On one level we achieve such an honour by doing so well internationally; and on another, we have had all these accidents in recent months…”

This year has in fact proved the most costly ever in terms of human lives lost in fireworks accidents. The explosion that rocked Gharb last Sunday claimed no fewer than six lives – equalling the previous ‘record’ for fireworks related deaths, when patrol boat C-23 exploded off Comino, 26 years earlier to the day.

And just a few weeks ago, one other man was killed in an explosion in Dwejra, limits of Mosta; yet another perished in May at the St Catherine’s fireworks factory in Marsaxlokk, while two further fireworks enthusiasts lost their lives in February in an explosion at the St Sebastian’s factory in Qormi… and there are still three months (and around four feasts) to go before 2011.

Falzon acknowledges that the stats are “worrying”; but at the same time, he warns against the ‘easy temptation’ to develop antagonistic attitudes towards the voluntary professionals involved.

“Let’s face it: in fireworks, there is nobody who sets out to deliberately cause accidents. So there is no point in painting them though they take some kind of pleasure in doing so…”

Fair enough, but few can realistically deny that the situation has now assumed the proportions of a crisis. In fact, for the first time in recent years it seems the idea of a moratorium on firework production – previously an unthinkable eventuality – is now being actively considered: if not by the main political parties, certainly by a substantial number of commentators who have expressed alarm at the steadily mounting death toll.

But as I bring up the recent proposal, originally floated by the Times and championed by Alternattiva Demokratika, Falzon can scarcely conceal his unbridled contempt.

“It is a stupid idea,” he swiftly rebuts. “Stupid, and ridiculous…”

Adopting a line that would be echoed the following day by Justice Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici – his ‘opposite number’, as it were, in Parliament – Falzon argues that a temporary ban would only increase the risk of accidents in the long term.

“A moratorium would add to existing pressures on the industry. It would punish everybody indiscriminately, regardless of whether or not they had been guilty of breaching regulations. And rather than control fireworks production, it would actually drive the industry underground, where it would be impossible to regulate at all.”

This sort of endemic resistance has since elicited criticism from AD, among others, along the lines that the main political parties were “putting lives before votes”.

But Michael Falzon pre-emptively rejects this sort of criticism as a form of conspiracy theory in its own right.

“There is nothing political to it at all,” he affirmed. “Those who are claiming that this has to do with votes are being unrealistic and irresponsible.”

On the contrary, Falzon claims that a moratorium would be objectionable on purely practical grounds. “OK, so let’s imagine a moratorium is imposed for, say, three months until the investigations are concluded. What happens when the time elapses? In the aftermath, there will be a mad rush to manufacture fireworks in a hurry… and that’s when accidents are likely to happen.”

With a moratorium clearly out of the question as far as Falzon is concerned, the question remains: what exactly is he proposing? I draw his attention to another idea, this time actively considered (and abandoned) by the Labour government way back in the 1980s, only to be resuscitated in the wake of this year’s fatalities.

Why not bring together all fireworks factories into one complex, from which each festa would then have to buy fireworks individually…?

Falzon dismisses the notion before I even have time to finish the question. “It is neither feasible nor desirable to house all factories under one roof. Today, there is consensus that it’s not a good idea. For one thing you would have a huge concentration of explosives stored in one place. For another, you would have a lot of people working together in the same complex. It just doesn’t make sense…”

Turning to the recent spate of explosions, I ask him what he himself – in his capacity as a self-avowed enthusiast, who has done his own time in the manufacturing department – makes of the apparent epidemic in fatal accidents. Inevitably, out trots the usual excuse: “I can’t comment, there’s an inquiry going on…”

However, Falzon is willing to share his suspicions on what he thinks did not cause the accidents at Gharb and Dwejra... pointing out that, contrary to a widespread misconception, neither accident actually concerned the manufacturing process.

“Those fireworks were all completed and ready to be transported. I don’t want to suggest reasons or possible causes for the explosion – that would be irresponsible, while there is an inquiry going on – but it doesn’t look likely that the quality of the chemicals could have had a lot to do with it…”

On the subject of chemicals and their quality, I ask Falzon what he makes of the revelation that one of Malta’s leading importers of pyrotechnics materials happens to be the Opposition leader’s own father. Doesn’t this place the Labour Party in a slightly awkward position when it comes to discussing the issue of fireworks safety?

Falzon gives me a quizzical look. “What difference does it make who the importers are? It’s irrelevant. The PL’s concern about fireworks safety is genuine, regardless of whether it’s Joseph Muscat’s father who imports the materials or not…”

Nor is this the only potential conflict of interest to emerge when talking about his pet subject. Falzon in fact often finds himself taken to task over his “multiple” roles as (among others) legal advisor to the fireworks lobby, band club president, and shadow minister for home affairs.

I point out that, if Labour wins the next election, the great likelihood is that Falzon would be appointed Home Affairs Minister: in which guise he would have to regulate the fireworks industry.

He assumes a modest expression. “I am no prophet, so I can’t say for certain that’s what will happen…”

OK, but supposing it does: wouldn’t he have a conflict of interest as legal representative of a lobby, in an industry he would also have to regulate?

Not at all, he replies. In fact, he goes one step further, arguing that the two roles are actually complementary. “There is no potential for conflict of interest. As a fireworks enthusiast myself, I can understand the concerns of people doing professional work on a voluntary basis. I know what it means to be in a fireworks factory. I know what the issues are…”

Rather than close an eye at irregularities, Falzon claims that his very knowledge of the industry would render him more vigilant, and not less.

“I would be more able to recognize when a regulation has been broken, and would be in a better position to take action. And fireworks enthusiasts may be more disposed to accept enforcement, if it comes from someone who understands them.”

Hinting at the sort of action he would take as home affairs minister, Falzon acknowledges that some of his policies may prove just slightly controversial.

“In the short-term I would propose an assessment of all existing fireworks facilities, upgrading them where necessary. Did you know that the current regulations governing fireworks factories (kmamar tan-nar) date back to 1980? That’s 30 years ago, and they’ve never been upgraded since…”

Falzon starts talking about a few of the pitfalls concerning these outdated regulations: some of which are more interesting than others. It turns out, for instance, that among the practices now considered obsolete was to build fireworks factories with cement roofs.

“They used to think that was safer,” he explains. “However, we now know that best practice is to have a collapsible roof that fragments more easily…”

For this reason, existing fireworks factories may pose a danger to the people working inside them. “We need to modernise existing facilities before anything else.”

This leads Falzon to the first ‘controversial’ aspect of his plan to improve safety standards: which consists in the State providing financial assistance to the fireworks lobby… coincidentally, just as the Malta Pyrotechnics Association (of which he is legal representative) has been asking all along.

“Why not?” he immediately asks, when I point out to him that the Maltese taxpayer might not exactly share in his enthusiasm for the idea. “We sponsor football, don’t we? And look how much taxpayers’ money we throw at events such as the Eurovision Song Contest. Why not invest a little in something that is traditional, something at which we excel for a change…?”

Perhaps because footballers and Eurovision contestants are less likely to use public money to blow themselves up…

“But I’m not talking about using public money to build new facilities, and still less to buy materials to manufacture fireworks. I am talking about using the money only to modernise and upgrade existing facilities. It’s important to specify this…”

When it comes to new facilities, Falzon himself admits that his second proposal is likely to generate even more controversy than the first.

“I believe there should be more permits granted to build new facilities. That includes the issue of permits currently pending approval by MEPA…”

Considering that present regulations limit the construction of such facilities to a minimum of 183 metres from inhabited areas, this would inevitably mean more countryside development. Falzon however argues that new, modern facilities are vital for the industry to achieve the desired safety standards, for the benefit of all concerned.

“Only this way, and with more education, discipline and self-regulation, will we gradually move towards having more professional and safety-oriented fireworks complexes.”

With difficulty, we steer away from the topic of fireworks, and move instead to something arguably just as explosive: divorce. As is now common knowledge, Labour leader Joseph Muscat has promised a ‘free vote’ if elected Prime Minister. But it is by no means certain whether the Labour parliamentary group will support their own leader’s motion. Meanwhile a Nationalist MP has gone ahead and done precisely the same thing. Sooner or later, some form of decision now has to be taken. So how will Michael Falzon vote when it comes to the crunch?

“First of all, what is my role as an MP? It is to cater for and reflect the exigencies and realities of today’s society. That, I feel, is the starting point…”

Yes, but these are generalisations. What is his own opinion in the matter? Falzon holds up his hand as if to say: patience, the answer is on its way…

“I think we need to see what type of divorce law we would be introducing. There are divorce laws and divorce laws… we don’t want a situation when a divorce can be granted in 15 minutes flat. I will cast my vote depending on the type of law we’d be introducing… if the law is reasonable and society needs it, I will vote in favour.”

What about the law presented by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando? Falzon smiles: “I think we are still in the initial stages of shock…”

But at the same time, the Labour Party’s justice spokesman argues that it is not something that should really shock us any longer. “Don’t forget that in our country there are already certain realities. There is already civil annulment, whose effects are even further reaching than those of divorce. There is church annulment also. And we already recognise certain foreign divorces. A divorce registered in the UK, Italy, Switzerland, can be registered in Malta, too.”

From this perspective, Falzon argues that much of the fuss surrounding the issue may be a little excessive.

“In today’s reality, having a divorce law of our own is not going to be such a massive change. It’s not as though we’re living in Heaven right now, and if we introduced divorce we’d be living in Hell…”