Great headline, but...! I don't mean mine, and I am not talking about Bush and Iraq. Tuesday's The Times front page told us "Minister pledges clampdown on illegal buildings". The minister in question is George Pullicino.

"The government intends to wage war on buildings outside development zones early next year with tougher regulations and better enforcement," is how the article started.

Strong stuff. "War" is a rather overdramatic word to use when the public is used to all the battles on enforcement being lost. The minister told The Times that measures were being discussed to stamp out abuse in land use and speed up the enforcement process.

Well, about time too, was my reaction. I remember sharing scepticism with many about the Environment and Planning Authority's (MEPA) enforcement on the issue.

This because of the way people had been erecting illegal structures, then appealing against enforcement for years and getting away with it. That is the crux of the problem.

I remember at least one episode, when a distraught family, who had been corresponding with MEPA for years over a neighbour who had erected an illegal structure on his front porch - breaking all the rules of the residential street - came to me with their story hoping something would be done if it was given media exposure.

The law-breaking neighbour kept appealing for years, and he kept getting away with it.

And I know that case is only the tip of the iceberg. Lack of resources has always been one of the excuses put forward by MEPA for their failure in enforcing the demolition of illegal structures.

Now the minister is telling us that MEPA has not got the cash to enforce! Each enforcement costs Lm250 per hour, he said, adding: "It (MEPA) carries out direct action but then it takes years in court to recoup the sum... that is a problem we are trying to solve."

My point is this: how is the minister going to solve not only the latter problem, but also the lack of human resources? The direct actions that MEPA carry out are not nearly enough.

Yet he passes the buck back to it and "insisted that MEPA could do more in the fight against illegal structures". He said that "illegal structures could at least be sealed off instead of demolished, which does not cost as much."

That, however, does not solve the eyesore problems, does it? Neither will it stop people taking a chance of building illegally as long as they know they can appeal against enforcement notices.

I am not sure what Minister Pullicino meant when he said that "the worst thing that can happen is to give the impression that people can go and build something and then one day MEPA will try to do something about it..." because that is exactly the impression the people are getting, and the worst is already happening.

Hello! As my son would say to someone who needs to wake up!

It gets worse. "If people build something, it will be there for a while, but at least they will not be able to make use of it", he said. And, he is telling us: "Owners of illegal buildings will be given a set period to appeal in all cases." And he is setting up yet another board to deal with these appeals outside the development zones.

"This will be a faster process to allow us to act," he said.

As Victor Meldrew from One Foot in the Grave would say "I don't believe it!"

Are these "the measures being discussed to stamp out abuse in land use and speed up the enforcement process"?

And if MEPA is strapped for human resources and cash, how will it also "intensify its efforts in special areas of conservation by slapping enforcement notices on a multitude of illegal structures that pepper the countryside"?

What is the point if the enforcement notices can be appealed against? Now if this is not 'politicianspeak', I don't know what is! And there's more. "Under the new regulations it would be virtually impossible to make a successful request to MEPA to sanction a building erected illegally after a date that has yet to be established."

Why 'virtually' impossible? Does that mean that some will still get away with it? And why has a date not been established? To prevent stepping on the wrong toes?

The minister starts off by saying there will be a clampdown on illegal buildings, yet all the illegal builders are still being given a lifeline, a reprieve. I have mentioned this before. One just must not sanction an illegal structure if one means business.

And why a 'successful' request? If the minister wants us to believe the hard talk then no request should be allowed in the first place. If people have gone ahead and built illegally, they have to face the consequences of breaking the law.

The minister also said that MEPA can use the powers at its disposal better, but he does not expand. Maybe he was not asked to! But it would be interesting to know how MEPA could do better without proper resources and cash flow difficulties?

Now we are told that this war is also going to be waged on hides used by hunters and trappers. The island is peppered with hides and besides the fact that some of them are an eyesore, the hunters who use them monopolise the countryside.

But even here the minister is not being serious. He believes that "it is possible to reach an arrangement with the hunters and trappers on the illegal hides and he has asked the FKNK (the hunters' federation) to make a proposal on how they could be built in line with the regulations."

That sanction again. If the hides are illegal, they should go. Is it war, or isn't it? Besides, everyone who has an illegal structure will quite rightly be asking for the same arrangement! Are these the tough measures?

And why just outside development zones? Are the cowboys in the cities and built up areas being given a further reprieve?

As minister of the environment Mr Pullicino is obviously concerned about the way the hunters monopolise the countryside, so why make arrangements for them to make their illegal hides, which are all over the countryside, legal?

"The public must have access to walk on land used... (I would say taken over) by hunters and trappers. The enforcement unit needs to have larger administrative capacity and act in co-ordination with the police to reopen access to public land where it has been shut off."

The minister waxes lyrical on this theme: "our country needs to reclaim walkways on the land". But we are not going to reclaim it if he makes deals with the hunters to retain their hides. However, he slips out of that quite easily and his concluding remarks were: "There has to be a lot more enforcement in this area, but this does not fall under MEPA's responsibility." So which enforcement unit is he talking about here? The one that falls under the Minister of Home Affairs, Tonio Borg. If so, couldn't the two ministries come to some arrangement?