Planning and authority

George Pullicino knows how to deflate an interviewer. In the pre-exchange pleasantries he openly declares he has a target - cynics might say unlike too many of his fellow ministers - but in a manner that is fresh out of the Curia school of PR he will not say what it is. Or, rather, he will, "but not on the record", which is a bit like Wayne Rooney agreeing to turn up for a game of football and then refusing to kick a ball. Both scenarios have the potential to make the opposition happy, but in this case Mr Pullicino is talking about losing weight rather than waste and the issue is personal. And this newspaper does not do personal.

But it does do political, which comes in handy when the subject under discussion is the Malta Environment and Planning Authority. Mepa, as it is known to its friends, is undergoing something of a reform at present as it seeks to adapt to the island's first experience of having a local plan. Mr Pullicino believes it should have three main roles: a forward-looking planning mechanism, an application process, and an environment protection role - which until 2002 was within the remit of the environment protection department. It is integrating the latter that he sees as problematic since, in his diplomatic language, "some people that came from the public service did not have the same modus operandi". In plain talk that means too damn slow.

"I think a number of problems have been solved, but when it comes to the EPD we still don't have enough resources. We need to find the financial means to recruit more people. We are not talking about clerks, but people who are specialised."

He says that merging the two entities was a cheaper option than keeping them separate and does not see a conflict between environment and planning. But he is more than aware of the danger: "We need to keep evolving to ensure they are not. Take energy conservation, we must get to the point - and we will - where there is an energy conservation plan when it comes to major projects... I walked past a development project in Sliema recently and saw refuse bags on the pavement. I can understand that my mother leaves a bag outside, but I cannot accept that a big project doesn't have a depot for waste and skips.

"There needs to be a lot more environmental responsibility by certain developers and contractors. People on the whole don't complain about development, but that development takes place without any consideration for the neighbours. They come and they smash the pavement. We will address these things and next year regulations will be in place."

Mr Pullicino accepts that regulations are nothing without enforcement and pledges they will spell out the responsibilities for wardens and Mepa enforcement officers. And he proposes to go further: "We should move to a system of bank guarantees in addition to the fines' system. A discussion will be held with all the stakeholders - we have mentioned three months - and then there will be information and then, at a date to be established the implementation will begin."

However, the "but" inevitably arrived when it came to getting results, as he admits that the biggest difficulty will be getting agencies and authorities to work together.

Mr Pullicino says a mentality exists whereby officials refuse to share information with their counterparts in other departments. "Take an application for land outside the development zone. Why, if I am a farmer, do I have to make an application and then have to wait for the case officer to write a letter to ask whether that farmer is full time etc. In this day and age, that information should be available on intranet. But departments keep it to themselves because they see it is a source of power."

Yet he declines an invitation to specify who he is talking about. "It is a national sickness... I believe the nation should discuss whether it should go for an enforcement system with one head. I know that the Prime Minister is interested in this and we need to discuss it."

One of the most persistent accusations levelled at Mepa is that it lacks consistency, though Mr Pullicino believes it is in a no-win situation since it will be criticised whether it is too rigid or too flexible. In his view flexibility should exist, since no two cases are alike. However, he says: "We need at the same time to reduce the powers of discretion and define them better. To have a 100 per cent system, you need to have a computer system of ticks and crosses that gives you a set result. I don't think that is planning, especially in a place like ours where land is limited."

He refuses to accept that flexibility invariably favours developers or that the construction industry is overheating. However, he does admit that development is never ending, particularly in areas like Sliema, though he argues that the reason for that is the haphazard construction that took place in the 1970s. "What happened was the worst thing possible: a concrete belt was built on the outside and the people in the middle were gasping for air. It should have been developed the other way round... we need to be balanced and not dogmatically say no to everything."

Those points are debatable. What is not is that the Archbishop levelled accusations of corruption against Mepa a few years ago. Mr Pullicino's reaction now was as bullish as it was then: "No one can make generic statements; whether it is my mother or the Archbishop... if he knows of cases like that, he has to specify whom because otherwise you are casting a shadow on all the employees of that organisation. And that is an injustice, because I know of people who are clean, give up their time, work hard and are not corrupt."

Which begged the question whether he was implying by this that some officials were corrupt. "I cannot speak for anybody; not for any official. But at the same time I don't have the right to accuse everybody. That's the difference. Whenever people pass me information, I pass it on to the audit officer. It is not true that we have not taken any steps and brushed things off. We have a commission against corruption and an audit officer at Mepa who can investigate claims and initiate cases off his own bat. That audit officer is working and working well."

Strong words. However, they lose their potency in the face of the facts since no one has been found guilty of corruption. In fact, the furthest these bodies have gone is to raise question marks against applications handled by certain case officers - and none against senior officials.

So are they all innocent? "I cannot speak for anyone apart for myself. Under my watch, there is an element of doubt about everyone - in the sense that if we have information about someone, we will take the necessary action. If a person has information and doesn't pass it on s/he is as guilty as the person who committed the corruption."

Which means the Archbishop, right? "No. I am talking about everyone. I am making a general statement: Whoever has information should pass it on. But it is unjust to label everyone."

If those comments are a perfect example of a politician being, well, a politician, his plans for Mepa to address illegal development outside development zones - including hides used by hunters and trappers - at least have the potential to mark him out as an effective one.

Over the past year, over 600 illegal structures have been removed and soon provisions in the law will allow Mepa to increase the maximum fine on illegal development from Lm1,000 to Lm10,000. However, Mr Pullicino goes to great pains to stress that hides can be built in an acceptable manner and that Mepa's jurisdiction only extends as far as the buildings on the land - and not the access through it, since that falls under the responsibility of the Home Affairs Ministry.

"I have been saying to the minister responsible for lands that the enforcement unit needs to have larger administrative capacity and act in coordination with the police to reopen access to public land where it has been shut off. I believe that our country needs to reclaim walkways on the land. We already have a problem because there is not much space on this island, and we have to have access."

Mr Pullicino believes the public would have adequate access to a large chunk of land if a golf course is eventually built at Xaghra l-Hamra, and he states categorically that the site identified by Mepa makes more sense to him than any other. "If the situation over the aquifer is resolved and, as the Prime Minister said, there is no unacceptable development, then that is the best... and it is not me saying it, but Mepa."

He believes, quite genuinely, that the area chosen by Mepa puts the island and its inhabitants in a win-win situation since there will still be access to the promontory and whoever develops it will have a duty to manage the scheduled area. "Today," he says, "it is scheduled on paper, but not managed".

And has the government been put under any pressure to shift the site to Pembroke? "We know the statements that have been made. Pembroke is one of the sites indicated in the report but that report says Xaghra l-Hamra has more value. Let's wait for the latest report to be completed.

But we must bear in mind that Pembroke is scheduled. So whoever is saying the golf course should go to Pembroke should realise that it is scheduled. The site Mepa has indicated at Xaghra l-Hamra is not scheduled."

So, not for the first time in this interview, we have to deal with a wait issue. But at least this one is within the legitimate remit of this newspaper.