Just out of reach
Jesmond Mugliett, the Urban Developments and Roads Minister is leaving his ministry deeply embittered. He had started off with such enthusiasm but unlike some of his counterparts, he has not had any ribbon-cutting ceremonies, no photo opportunities. Even more galling, the projects are ready for his successor to finalise within weeks... He explained why.
Two years ago we spoke about eight or nine specific projects that your ministry was working on. As far as I can tell, only one of them actually materialised: the Park and Ride and CVA scheme - and even that did not turn out as planned. The park and ride was brought in free of charge...
A lot of projects evolve - and not always in the way initially intended. We intended to have a private concession but when we analysed the CVA project we thought it might be quite onerous on people working in Valletta. So we reduced the area covered by the CVA, leaving the ring road out, and we made the Park and Ride free so commuters would have an alternative.
That is not the way I remember it. I remember there were problems with the adjudication of the tender to the private operator and it was brought in free rather than delay it any longer...
No. It is true that a tenderer had taken us to arbitration but we had taken the decision to make it free before the arbitration was concluded.
George Fenech told me he was part of the consortium that won the Vertical Connections project but that it was stuck somewhere. After months, you presented a motion in parliamentary committee recently for the transfer of the land, which was turned down by Labour. Parliament is now adjourned. Why did you wait so long to present the motion?
The need to transfer land by parliamentary resolution only cropped up very late in the day. It is a technical issue as the concession includes the operation of a car park, the installation of lifts and the development of some shops towards the customs area. When the Land Department started to look at the tender, they said it did not fall within the Malta Transport Authority's remit to give out commercial concessions such as the development of shops. So it had to go to Parliament. Unfortunately, last minute negotiations took around 10 days which made us lose the last two days of Parliament. But technically the project is 99 per cent complete and only needs the last debate in Parliament.
Surely this is homework that should have been done before. In so many projects, you get so far but are then stopped because something is missing, whether from the Land Department or the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa). Why isn't the homework being done properly in the first place?
There are projects whose time frames were postponed because Mepa indicated that Environmental Planning Statements - which are Environmental Impact Assessments - needed to be carried out. Unfortunately, Mepa never indicated this requirement at an earlier stage. And this happened in Dock One, for example, even though the briefs had been agreed with Mepa, even though it was on board at the negotiation stage...
When Mepa makes a categoric request for an EPS, we must see how the requirements can be met in the shortest time possible. But an EPS sets you back by at least six months. This is my biggest frustration in this ministry.
One of the delayed projects is the Schreiber Ground in Paola, which you had described as a "regeneration project that would make a real difference". What happened there?
In this case we had submitted a full development application and Mepa requested an EPS. Once Mepa defines the scope of the EPS, you do the studies themselves and then you have the consultation, all of which takes months. The EPS has been submitted and public consultation ended on February 25 so I am optimistic that I could issue the tender before the election.
And Dock One?
There were two factors that held us up. The outline application was submitted in December 2006 and took three months for Mepa to look at it. It then decided that an EPS was needed. In the meantime, the plans were evolving. But work on the EPS has started and I would say we are one or two months away from approval of the outline application.
That is still the outline application. The Cottonera project has been on the cards for over a decade...
I launched Dock One in 2005. No one could do anything before the land was transferred to the government from the shipyards.
The outline application is critical because it forms the basis of the parliamentary resolution, indicating what is permissible.
In Cottonera, things were approved at outline application but when the developers moved to the full development permit stage, Mepa said "no".
I think the outline applications will now be more prescriptive about what can be done so that what is accepted at outline application would stand a very good chance of getting accepted at full development stage. Once that happens, there should not be that many hiccups for development to move on steadily.
So you making sure that from now on Mepa indicates where the goalposts are at the outline permit stage?
Definitely. At Dock One, we had issues like storey heights and development next to Senglea Gate (which Mepa insisted should be less than the developers wanted). If this is indicated at outline development stage, then the developer would not have the room to negotiate later on.
Fort St Elmo was supposed to get off the ground by 2007. Not only has this not happened but it seems to have been swept away by the Investments Ministry as part of the harbour plans... Every time we talk about St Elmo it has a different use.
We never really started work on it. We discussed it at Cabinet committee but at the time we thought there were too many other projects underway and felt it was better to wait a bit. So it was always on the back burner.
Now I would say it makes sense for it to form part of a comprehensive plan, such as a cruise liner terminal, as this is the only commercialisation that is acceptable and which could make the rest of the restoration viable.
The Opera House has spent most of last year as either storage for plastic chairs awaiting the summer festivals - or as the site office for the Merchants Street paving project. This was not on the back burner...
We had intense studies on the project and came up with plans and estimates, financing models, etc. But when we had concrete proposals there was controversy about the use and the extent of commercialisation of the project.
As government finances started to grow stronger, the feeling was that it would make sense for the project to be launched with less commercialisation and probably funded directly by government.
We were also not very happy to start a project of that nature just before an election. I would say the time to start that project will be immediately after the election and the next government would be quite resolute in doing so.
While on the subject of Valletta and City Gate, we wanted a bus reform that would improve the buses and the services. The drivers wanted better working conditions and a more organised terminus. I remember looking at plans when I came back to Malta in 1993. That is 15 years ago...
The plans for the terminus were revised and an outline application has been submitted to Mepa. We are hoping to propose the project as a regeneration project using EU funds.
The bus reform... (pause)
The bus drivers won...
No, they did not. They don't have the contract they wanted; they don't have a contract at all. A decision has to be taken this year. We did not want an agreement at any cost, an agreement that we were not happy with. The stumbling block was that the operators wanted a guarantee that, if at some time in the next 10 years, they would lose their indefinite contract, they would be compensated for what they consider to be the value of their permit. We were not willing to give that. So we still have to keep negotiating that last point. On all other aspects, we have agreed.
Such as the number of buses and routes and rosters? And sectionalisation of routes?
Yes.
So what does it mean in practical terms that they are working without a contract now?
At the moment they are operating in an environment which could be described as having grandfather rights, where you have a licence because your family has always had a licence.Today, we know the EU no longer accepts grandfather rights within the public transport sector. We have to move from a situation of grandfather rights to a contract one. This will take the form of a service level agreement, specifying the quality of the agreement and its duration. All the drafting has been done and 90 per cent of it has been negotiated and agreed.
We were willing to give a 10-year contract with all the relevant details, including the bus replacement policy and financing models and so forth. The only issue was that of compensation if for any reason whatsoever the operators were to lose their indefinite rights and, if so, what it should be, if at all.
We had discussed the need for parking in Vittoriosa. A hotel is finally on its way, which will mean the need for one will become even more acute. What is happening?
Mepa also approved the development of a supermarket on the site of the former cement stores (the building beneath Couvre Porte).
The car park was included with Dock One although it was not part of the original brief area. We asked the winning consortium to consider it as part of their proposal and they drew up good plans for this that we are happy with and that Mepa is happy with. So it will go forward with the rest of the development.
On to roads. Polidano did illegal works which resulted in the partial collapse of a main road in St Paul's Bay. Not only has he not been fined but you were willing to give him land to develop in return for fixing the damage he caused. The OPM overruled you. What were you thinking?
That is not exactly true. We were at a certain time thinking of expropriating the land but Polidano suggested that rather than compensating him with money for the land, we would compensate him with other land of a similar value. And we started studying that. Eventually, we found out that the original valuation we did was not according to the norms used by the Land Department and the exercise could not go through.
We continued insisting that Polidano does the works at his expense.
Were the two things linked? Was the expropriation of the land and compensation anything to do with the fact that he did illegal work on a site causing a collapse of a major road, causing major invoncenience to commuters to this very day?
Polidano always disputed the fact that he was totally responsible for the collapse and he maintained that there were other owners before he acquired the land who were responsible.
So go to Court and let it decide. He is either responsible or he is not. Why has it taken so long? You are talking about a major road - a bypass whose refurbishment cannot be completed?
We have found a solution and Polidano, at our insistence, did the shoring works. We could not do anything about the road till the extensive shoring works were done. A long and high retaining wall had to be built, which is now at an advanced stage. Now we can start the building of the road, at no expense to the government, with no expropriation charges. The road will be finished in a few weeks' time.
How many of the 450 residential roads have been completed and how many of them need to be re-done because of bad workmanship?
The programme for 450 roads came up after we had already done 379. Of the 450 that we identified, we did around 230. Of these, only in a few did damages result.
They were very photogenic damages...
Yes, and they were conveniently trumpeted by Labour. Unfortunately, the good work done in 98 per cent of the roads does not get highlighted as much. Only in a few did I get the impression that the work was faulty.
These were done under an arrangement where you worked with the FOI. Did the system solve the problem of contractors who had failed you in the past getting more work?
Contractors know that they have to repair damages that are their fault. There were problems in ?ejtun, Mellie?a, Paola and Attard, for example. In the majority of these cases, the remedial works will be carried out because it was the contractor's fault. They know they have to rectify the damages or they will not get further works.
The new method of doing works helped us speed up the process as we do not have to wait for the tender process. We also stopped contractors trying to undermine each other pricewise, which usually results in them cutting corners.
The Manwel Dimech Bridge project has moved from the sublime to the ridiculous. It has actually made its way into panto jokes. The question is simple: When will it reopen?
By April, we should see the end.
So will the contractor be fined (for being late) or not?
I said it had to be ready by March but people advise me not to give exact dates, so I am giving myself some leeway...
The contractor is working towards completing in March and the progress so far does not indicate that he will not be able to meet that deadline.
What projects will be approved for EU funding?
We issued tenders for two: The Marsascala bypass has to be rebuilt and we are at the moment adjudicating the tender; and the Ta' Qali Crafts Village roads is at tendering stage at the moment.
Around €150 million in all have been earmarked for roads or transport-related projects, such as an intelligent traffic management system, which uses hardware and IT systems to monitor and control traffic intelligently.
Of this €150 million, how much has been approved?
I would say the vast majority of the funds, €110-€120 million, are Cohesion Funds and to my knowledge, these were approved.
Marsascala and Ta' Qali would be financed through Structural Funds and I am confident that they will also be approved.
Ta' Qali Crafts Village was another project where the government was criticised for not moving fast enough.
When it came to my ministry, we had to redefine the project and until then it was going to be financed through adjacent land being given for commercialisation.
We came up with a project whereby the EU would finance the roads and the government would directly finance the additional expenditure needed to build the workshops, along with the contribution of tenants.
We had to go into detailed design of the plans, the new Mepa permits, full tenders and so forth. The tender was issued last autumn and it is now at adjudication. The period will end in February and this project should also move very fast now.
And finally, what is the latest on the Royal Malta Yacht Club?
I moved all the legal issues related to Midi and the Yacht Club to Cabinet last November. There was only one hitch related to Midi being granted development rights on other land on Manoel Island, where these rights could not be exercised.
Even that issue has now been resolved and we came up with an alternative which will be acceptable to Midi.
So what are you giving them instead?
We will not be giving them virgin land but rather a site on Manoel Island where there are already buildings that they will demolish and redevelop.
Once we iron out these details, the parliamentary resolution on Midi and RMYC can hopefully be moved forward in the first sessions of the next Parliament.
As a parting statement I would say I have been in this ministry for a bit less than four years. Most of the projects I dealt with were new ones.
People criticise us for taking too long and after my experience in this ministry I would say that to an extent it is true. I wish we had moved faster on all the projects but you cannot, even at government level, disregard Mepa procedures.
I am quite happy that I will be leaving this ministry with all these projects at the point of coming to fruition.
A lot of projects evolve - and not always in the way initially intended. We intended to have a private concession but when we analysed the CVA project we thought it might be quite onerous on people working in Valletta. So we reduced the area covered by the CVA, leaving the ring road out, and we made the Park and Ride free so commuters would have an alternative.
That is not the way I remember it. I remember there were problems with the adjudication of the tender to the private operator and it was brought in free rather than delay it any longer...
No. It is true that a tenderer had taken us to arbitration but we had taken the decision to make it free before the arbitration was concluded.
George Fenech told me he was part of the consortium that won the Vertical Connections project but that it was stuck somewhere. After months, you presented a motion in parliamentary committee recently for the transfer of the land, which was turned down by Labour. Parliament is now adjourned. Why did you wait so long to present the motion?
The need to transfer land by parliamentary resolution only cropped up very late in the day. It is a technical issue as the concession includes the operation of a car park, the installation of lifts and the development of some shops towards the customs area. When the Land Department started to look at the tender, they said it did not fall within the Malta Transport Authority's remit to give out commercial concessions such as the development of shops. So it had to go to Parliament. Unfortunately, last minute negotiations took around 10 days which made us lose the last two days of Parliament. But technically the project is 99 per cent complete and only needs the last debate in Parliament.
Surely this is homework that should have been done before. In so many projects, you get so far but are then stopped because something is missing, whether from the Land Department or the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa). Why isn't the homework being done properly in the first place?
There are projects whose time frames were postponed because Mepa indicated that Environmental Planning Statements - which are Environmental Impact Assessments - needed to be carried out. Unfortunately, Mepa never indicated this requirement at an earlier stage. And this happened in Dock One, for example, even though the briefs had been agreed with Mepa, even though it was on board at the negotiation stage...
When Mepa makes a categoric request for an EPS, we must see how the requirements can be met in the shortest time possible. But an EPS sets you back by at least six months. This is my biggest frustration in this ministry.
One of the delayed projects is the Schreiber Ground in Paola, which you had described as a "regeneration project that would make a real difference". What happened there?
In this case we had submitted a full development application and Mepa requested an EPS. Once Mepa defines the scope of the EPS, you do the studies themselves and then you have the consultation, all of which takes months. The EPS has been submitted and public consultation ended on February 25 so I am optimistic that I could issue the tender before the election.
And Dock One?
There were two factors that held us up. The outline application was submitted in December 2006 and took three months for Mepa to look at it. It then decided that an EPS was needed. In the meantime, the plans were evolving. But work on the EPS has started and I would say we are one or two months away from approval of the outline application.
That is still the outline application. The Cottonera project has been on the cards for over a decade...
I launched Dock One in 2005. No one could do anything before the land was transferred to the government from the shipyards.
The outline application is critical because it forms the basis of the parliamentary resolution, indicating what is permissible.
In Cottonera, things were approved at outline application but when the developers moved to the full development permit stage, Mepa said "no".
I think the outline applications will now be more prescriptive about what can be done so that what is accepted at outline application would stand a very good chance of getting accepted at full development stage. Once that happens, there should not be that many hiccups for development to move on steadily.
So you making sure that from now on Mepa indicates where the goalposts are at the outline permit stage?
Definitely. At Dock One, we had issues like storey heights and development next to Senglea Gate (which Mepa insisted should be less than the developers wanted). If this is indicated at outline development stage, then the developer would not have the room to negotiate later on.
Fort St Elmo was supposed to get off the ground by 2007. Not only has this not happened but it seems to have been swept away by the Investments Ministry as part of the harbour plans... Every time we talk about St Elmo it has a different use.
We never really started work on it. We discussed it at Cabinet committee but at the time we thought there were too many other projects underway and felt it was better to wait a bit. So it was always on the back burner.
Now I would say it makes sense for it to form part of a comprehensive plan, such as a cruise liner terminal, as this is the only commercialisation that is acceptable and which could make the rest of the restoration viable.
The Opera House has spent most of last year as either storage for plastic chairs awaiting the summer festivals - or as the site office for the Merchants Street paving project. This was not on the back burner...
We had intense studies on the project and came up with plans and estimates, financing models, etc. But when we had concrete proposals there was controversy about the use and the extent of commercialisation of the project.
As government finances started to grow stronger, the feeling was that it would make sense for the project to be launched with less commercialisation and probably funded directly by government.
We were also not very happy to start a project of that nature just before an election. I would say the time to start that project will be immediately after the election and the next government would be quite resolute in doing so.
While on the subject of Valletta and City Gate, we wanted a bus reform that would improve the buses and the services. The drivers wanted better working conditions and a more organised terminus. I remember looking at plans when I came back to Malta in 1993. That is 15 years ago...
The plans for the terminus were revised and an outline application has been submitted to Mepa. We are hoping to propose the project as a regeneration project using EU funds.
The bus reform... (pause)
The bus drivers won...
No, they did not. They don't have the contract they wanted; they don't have a contract at all. A decision has to be taken this year. We did not want an agreement at any cost, an agreement that we were not happy with. The stumbling block was that the operators wanted a guarantee that, if at some time in the next 10 years, they would lose their indefinite contract, they would be compensated for what they consider to be the value of their permit. We were not willing to give that. So we still have to keep negotiating that last point. On all other aspects, we have agreed.
Such as the number of buses and routes and rosters? And sectionalisation of routes?
Yes.
So what does it mean in practical terms that they are working without a contract now?
At the moment they are operating in an environment which could be described as having grandfather rights, where you have a licence because your family has always had a licence.Today, we know the EU no longer accepts grandfather rights within the public transport sector. We have to move from a situation of grandfather rights to a contract one. This will take the form of a service level agreement, specifying the quality of the agreement and its duration. All the drafting has been done and 90 per cent of it has been negotiated and agreed.
We were willing to give a 10-year contract with all the relevant details, including the bus replacement policy and financing models and so forth. The only issue was that of compensation if for any reason whatsoever the operators were to lose their indefinite rights and, if so, what it should be, if at all.
We had discussed the need for parking in Vittoriosa. A hotel is finally on its way, which will mean the need for one will become even more acute. What is happening?
Mepa also approved the development of a supermarket on the site of the former cement stores (the building beneath Couvre Porte).
The car park was included with Dock One although it was not part of the original brief area. We asked the winning consortium to consider it as part of their proposal and they drew up good plans for this that we are happy with and that Mepa is happy with. So it will go forward with the rest of the development.
On to roads. Polidano did illegal works which resulted in the partial collapse of a main road in St Paul's Bay. Not only has he not been fined but you were willing to give him land to develop in return for fixing the damage he caused. The OPM overruled you. What were you thinking?
That is not exactly true. We were at a certain time thinking of expropriating the land but Polidano suggested that rather than compensating him with money for the land, we would compensate him with other land of a similar value. And we started studying that. Eventually, we found out that the original valuation we did was not according to the norms used by the Land Department and the exercise could not go through.
We continued insisting that Polidano does the works at his expense.
Were the two things linked? Was the expropriation of the land and compensation anything to do with the fact that he did illegal work on a site causing a collapse of a major road, causing major invoncenience to commuters to this very day?
Polidano always disputed the fact that he was totally responsible for the collapse and he maintained that there were other owners before he acquired the land who were responsible.
So go to Court and let it decide. He is either responsible or he is not. Why has it taken so long? You are talking about a major road - a bypass whose refurbishment cannot be completed?
We have found a solution and Polidano, at our insistence, did the shoring works. We could not do anything about the road till the extensive shoring works were done. A long and high retaining wall had to be built, which is now at an advanced stage. Now we can start the building of the road, at no expense to the government, with no expropriation charges. The road will be finished in a few weeks' time.
How many of the 450 residential roads have been completed and how many of them need to be re-done because of bad workmanship?
The programme for 450 roads came up after we had already done 379. Of the 450 that we identified, we did around 230. Of these, only in a few did damages result.
They were very photogenic damages...
Yes, and they were conveniently trumpeted by Labour. Unfortunately, the good work done in 98 per cent of the roads does not get highlighted as much. Only in a few did I get the impression that the work was faulty.
These were done under an arrangement where you worked with the FOI. Did the system solve the problem of contractors who had failed you in the past getting more work?
Contractors know that they have to repair damages that are their fault. There were problems in ?ejtun, Mellie?a, Paola and Attard, for example. In the majority of these cases, the remedial works will be carried out because it was the contractor's fault. They know they have to rectify the damages or they will not get further works.
The new method of doing works helped us speed up the process as we do not have to wait for the tender process. We also stopped contractors trying to undermine each other pricewise, which usually results in them cutting corners.
The Manwel Dimech Bridge project has moved from the sublime to the ridiculous. It has actually made its way into panto jokes. The question is simple: When will it reopen?
By April, we should see the end.
So will the contractor be fined (for being late) or not?
I said it had to be ready by March but people advise me not to give exact dates, so I am giving myself some leeway...
The contractor is working towards completing in March and the progress so far does not indicate that he will not be able to meet that deadline.
What projects will be approved for EU funding?
We issued tenders for two: The Marsascala bypass has to be rebuilt and we are at the moment adjudicating the tender; and the Ta' Qali Crafts Village roads is at tendering stage at the moment.
Around €150 million in all have been earmarked for roads or transport-related projects, such as an intelligent traffic management system, which uses hardware and IT systems to monitor and control traffic intelligently.
Of this €150 million, how much has been approved?
I would say the vast majority of the funds, €110-€120 million, are Cohesion Funds and to my knowledge, these were approved.
Marsascala and Ta' Qali would be financed through Structural Funds and I am confident that they will also be approved.
Ta' Qali Crafts Village was another project where the government was criticised for not moving fast enough.
When it came to my ministry, we had to redefine the project and until then it was going to be financed through adjacent land being given for commercialisation.
We came up with a project whereby the EU would finance the roads and the government would directly finance the additional expenditure needed to build the workshops, along with the contribution of tenants.
We had to go into detailed design of the plans, the new Mepa permits, full tenders and so forth. The tender was issued last autumn and it is now at adjudication. The period will end in February and this project should also move very fast now.
And finally, what is the latest on the Royal Malta Yacht Club?
I moved all the legal issues related to Midi and the Yacht Club to Cabinet last November. There was only one hitch related to Midi being granted development rights on other land on Manoel Island, where these rights could not be exercised.
Even that issue has now been resolved and we came up with an alternative which will be acceptable to Midi.
So what are you giving them instead?
We will not be giving them virgin land but rather a site on Manoel Island where there are already buildings that they will demolish and redevelop.
Once we iron out these details, the parliamentary resolution on Midi and RMYC can hopefully be moved forward in the first sessions of the next Parliament.
As a parting statement I would say I have been in this ministry for a bit less than four years. Most of the projects I dealt with were new ones.
People criticise us for taking too long and after my experience in this ministry I would say that to an extent it is true. I wish we had moved faster on all the projects but you cannot, even at government level, disregard Mepa procedures.
I am quite happy that I will be leaving this ministry with all these projects at the point of coming to fruition.