Public access to the local countryside

Question Time in the local parliamentary system is a mine of information and a constant source of the intentions of the future actions of Government. Unfortunately, the democratic system entails that the wheels of action turn too slowly.

A legitimate proposal is debated ad nauseam before a decision is taken. The following is a transcript of a parliamentary 'debate.' It is also an assessment of a proposal submitted by the Ramblers Association of Malta and presented in parliament by Labour MP Evarist Bartolo.

As one will see, the question raises a parliamentary altercation that leads to a maze of conditional answers, none of which provides a concrete, equitable solution.

Mr Bartolo asked the question to the Minister of Rural Affairs and the Environment. His contribution underlines the problem of the access of the public to the countryside. The core issue is intrinsically part of the policy of the Ramblers Association of Malta.

Hence it is so relevant to current environmental problems that the public deserves to be made aware of it. Mr Bartolo asked Minister George Pullicino whether Government intends to enact a law to make public access possible and whether the law will be enacted before the current legislature comes to an end.

Mr Bartolo kindly accepted to present the petition which the Ramblers Association had so meticulously drawn up after much careful study and research to Parliament. Dr Austin Gatt, in the name of the Minister of Rural Affairs and the Environment, intervened and asked Mr Bartolo to submit the question to the minister concerned with such a topic.

Originally, Mr Bartolo had submitted this question to the prime minister, as head of Government. It was not answered because Mr Bartolo was told to direct his question to the Minister of Rural Affairs. When he did as instructed, he was told to ask the question to the minister concerned.

Naturally, he was at a loss on what to do and pleaded to be told to whom he should direct the question.

Dr Gatt bluntly answered: "I do not know!" A very honest reply, though it was he who had recommended that the question should be answered by the minister concerned. However, perhaps having relented on his rash answer, he then said that he dared to "suppose" that, as the question concerned the enactment of legislation and also "perhaps" because the question concerned the use of public land, then ("of course" only where the land is public, because otherwise the public has no right of access to private land) the question should be directed to the Minister of Internal Affairs.

These intricate details reveal either deliberate discouragement or lack of knowledge and of preparation on the subject, or that the ministry has no policy at all on the matter. Certainly, such uncertain and evasive tactics confuse the mind even of spectators in the public gallery.

Yet Mr Bartolo does not easily give up and persisted in asking a supplementary question requesting an answer, not from the minister but from Government.

The Speaker of the House, hoping perhaps to bring the question to an early end, called Dr Tonio Borg. Here, the learned gentleman tried to elucidate the matter in such a way that he gives hope to all (especially the Ramblers Association) of a possible solution.

He draws attention to two difficulties: a) he begins the discussion with a rhetorical question: 'Has anyone encroached on land accesses that naturally belong to the public?' Here he affirms that in such cases Government can take action because no one has any right to bar access of paths open to the public.

Nor can any farmer very abusively think that he has any right to put up any obstacles to deter people from making use of nearby alleys or paths. In such cases, when someone reports the matter to the authorities or provides information of such abuse, then Government would issue the necessary enforcement notice.

Undoubtedly, this very positive reply, replete with encouraging truth, conforms to the demands of the Ramblers Association.

Naturally all parliamentary members know of such abuse but what the Ramblers Association has been clamouring for is precisely that Government should sort out this anomalous situation in the interest of the public. However, were one to think that the matter is a cut and dry case, one would be totally misinformed. In fact, here is the rub!

Dr Borg points out the legal difficulties: b) unfortunately, a recent court sentence decided that the law that gives Government or the Commissioner of Lands the right to order the removal of the illegal occupant of government land goes against the Constitution. Does this imply that the law courts condone immoral behaviour or is the court sentence a mistake?

Yet Dr Borg does not strike a negative attitude of helplessness and stressed: "Naturally, the court sentence is still under appeal and consequently the law is still valid. Nevertheless, one can still make an appeal against the court sentence which is still very controversial."

Dr Borg adds further legal development and continues to say that, whether the land is privately owned or whether, though it belongs to Government, is being occupied under a legal title, the public cannot have a right of access.

The problem infringes on the ancient rights that we all know about: it does not matter whether the land has been rented from a private owner or from Government. The land rightfully belongs to that person (in a way) that has been rented to him.

Consequently, according to the laws that everybody is familiar with up to now, a person has the right to refuse entry to all and sundry on the land that, for all intents and purposes, belongs to him.

Nevertheless, he strikes a positive note and shows every determination to investigate the situation in finding a solution. He then elucidates how this could be done. Everybody knows that other countries much bigger than Malta have enacted laws that, no matter what, give roaming rights to the public, even on land in private ownership.

If one were to examine the specific propositions, and if one made a thorough study of them, one would try to discover what would be the best interest for everybody.

Nevertheless, the resulting analysis would include the conflicts that might arise between those who have pretensions to make use of this law (that so far nobody knows exactly what form such a law should be dressed in), and those members of the public who have roaming rights to all lands.

Then Dr Borg affirmed with certainty that Government would take action when the authorities received reports of places where illegal encroachment has occurred. He also lauded the Ramblers Association for stimulating a moral conscience: this NGO had made it clear that many countryside accesses had been open to the public for many years in the past but now the public was being denied their rightful entrance because of 'blocked' passages and paths.

Doubtlessly, he stressed these pathways should be thrown open to the public again. "However, (addressing Mr Bartolo) if this is the only demand, there is no need for any legislation."

As everybody knows, this is not so. Only legislation can elucidate the matter. The demands of the Ramblers Association include cultural and environmental aspects, other than rambling: their vision stretches to the protection of the countryside from entrepreneurial undertakings, such as golf courses, as well as the safeguarding of historical and archaeological sites and not just right of passage or the freedom to roam over designated paths.

Consequently, Mr Bartolo's parliamentary question did not merely refer to rambling but to the enactment of new legislation. He made it clear by repeatedly asking if "Government has any intention of presenting this new legislation to the House before the end of the current legislature".

Dr Borg committed himself to such legislation: "doubtlessly". Then he qualifies his statement by a string of conditions: a) only if a good proposal is acceptable to everybody. Dr Borg knows very well that he is asking the impossible. No law enactment pleases everybody!

He forgets that parliamentary democracy follows the dictates of the majority. He also knows quite well that recent surveys in The Times on the environment have drawn a positive acceptance from at least 85 per cent of the voting participants.

b) It is acceptable to farmers and to all the people whose land is invaded by 'trespassers'. Dr Borg makes it sound as if ramblers were irresponsible beings ready to trample on cultivated areas. He also forgets that legislators will safeguard the rights of landowners and farmers by designating and authorising for rambling those paths and open spaces that have existed since time immemorial.

The people bear no grudge against farmers and landowners but against the usurpation of public land.

c) Dr Borg insisted that Government will propose such legislation "provided that the Opposition will vote with government on the proposal". This is an incomprehensible condition. A political party with majority rule in Parliament does not need the support of the Opposition, to enact laws though the Opposition will certainly be favourably inclined.

Then follows a Parthian shot, a remark reserved to clinch his closing speech. This remark makes the proposed legislation of the Ramblers Association such a difficult undertaking. "Be warned that the whole matter is more complicated than anyone may think!"

Of course it is, but this is why the people elect a government endowed with the knowledge of many legal and other professional experts so that it can solve their problems, no matter what!

Evidently, Question Time in Parliament is an interesting procedure that allows the members of the House to submit questions to ministers on behalf of their constituents and pressure groups. At times, as in this case, ministers prevaricate to such an extent that the solution remains suspended in mid-air, because they feel reluctant to solve the 'complicated' issue.

However, a morally upright party can make choices between right and wrong, and legislate according to the will of the majority. The environment has become a major issue in global politics and the sooner Government follows the trends of other countries the better for the life of the Maltese.