Audit officer explains why he withheld report

Malta Environment and Planning Authority auditor Joe Falzon has certain reservations about the Ombudsman's recommendation to halt the release of a report which investigates the controversial approval of the upgrading of the Marsascala waste recycling plant.

But feels he should respect the advice given. Mr Falzon told The Times: "I see where he (the Ombudsman) is coming from and I agree with the general thrust of his opinion... However, there is the public interest to consider."

Yesterday The Times reported that on the advice of Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino, Mepa's audit office had decided not to release a report it had compiled on the proceedings which last December led to the approval of the plant's re-development.

On receiving an advance copy of the report, the authority's lawyers sought the Ombudsman's opinion on whether the document's findings could be made public in view of the pending appeal.

The investigation was pursued after the Committee Against the Proposed Waste Recycling Plant requested the audit officer to look into the matter, claiming, on the basis of a dossier it compiled, that the decision was a "forgone conclusion".

When asked to comment on the decision, Mr Falzon said he agreed that his office should refrain from carrying out an investigation into a matter while an appeal was still pending. However, he added: "I cannot understand why it (the appeal) is taking so long, not to mention that right now it's sine die (postponed indefinitely)."

Mr Falzon also believes that the public interest should be the overriding consideration in a decision regarding a project on the scale of the Marsascala plant.

"Having said this, I have great respect for the experience of the Ombudsman, as well as the individual himself, which is why I decided to abide by his recommendation," Mr Falzon said.

In a press release issued yesterday, however, the committee lobbying against the plant vowed to contest the decision.

"We want justice. We want Mepa's report to be published. In a democratic country citizens have a right to information."

The committee claimed that Mepa would prefer to block publication of the report because it feared its conclusions.

"Would the authority have done all it could to block the report had the conclusions been in its favour and against the residents?" the committee asked.

When contacted the authority said the report had been withheld by the auditor, and not by Mepa.

"Mepa has never circulated or withheld any of the audit officer's reports," it said.

The committee will provide its official reaction today and Mepa has said that it may comment in the light of that.