Former Malta Enterprise Members Respond To Jean Paul Sofia Inquiry Report
Former members of the Malta Enterprise Committee issued a statement in response to the Jean Paul Sofia Inquiry report stating that the Investment Committee only approved a one-storey workshop – not a five-floor factory as was incorrectly stated in the inquiry conclusions.
The statement was issued collectively by Peter Borg, Frank Farrugia, Paul Abela, Victor Carachi and Dana Farrugia.
The Committee asserted it only approved a one-storey workshop for a start-up involved in high-end furniture manufacturing, contradicting the inquiry’s claim that a five-floor factory was approved.
The former members emphasised this distinction is significant as the scope and potential impact of a one-storey workshop versus a five-floor factory are vastly different, especially regarding safety, environmental, and community considerations.
They also noted that the due diligence report presented to them contained no reference to the applicant’s criminal background, and no concerns were raised during their review process.
The documentation reviewed in May 2019 referred to a startup in the high-end furniture manufacturing sector, warranting the allocation of 300 square metres of land for a workshop.
This decision was backed by positive prospects for the furniture industry and the potential for creating jobs for five full-time employees.
It was indicated that 250 square metres would be used for “Production/Operations”, 25 square metres for “Warehouse/Storage” and 25 square metres for “Admin/Offices”, giving a total of 300 square metres.
“This is what the Investment Committee approved. A workshop of 300 square metres on one floor and nothing more.”
Through the statement, they emphasised that once the Investment Committee had approved the allocation proposed by Malta Enterprise management, its role in this matter, as in every other proposal, was terminated.
They clarified that the Investment Committee’s role is to approve proposals for industrial aid, not to supervise its use; this task falls within the remit of other bodies.
Furthermore, the committee members highlighted their absence from the inquiry’s testimonies, a fact they believe led to inaccuracies not being addressed.
The members expressed their dismay at being criticised by the inquiry board for a “superficial” handling of the case without the opportunity to provide their insights, deeming such conclusions unwarranted.
They also voiced concerns over the impact of these findings on their reputations, reserving their rights in light of the inquiry board’s conclusion.
What do you make of this statement?
READ NEXT: Watch: CCTV Footage Exposes Two Men Stealing From Shops In Ħamrun And Birkirkara
