George Micallef reveals meeting with Pullicino Orlando and DCC officials over Mistra

George Micallef, the consultant to the Malta Tourism Authority who recently offered his resignation over the Mistra case has revealed how he reluctantly attended a meeting with Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and two officials who he later learnt were the chairman and a member of the Development Control Commission which subsequently issued the outline development permit for development at Mistra.

In a long statement, Mr Micallef speaks about how he was repeatedly contacted by Dr Pullicino Orlando over the proposed development and strongly denies he was consultant to the MTA and to the developer at the same time.

I feel compelled to issue this statement in view of the extensive media coverage, concerning my involvement in the Mistra case application. This coverage is at times misleading, at others incorrect and occasionally unfavourably biased in my regard. It is felt that the stress of the reportage should be elsewhere. The sole intention of this statement is to give a true and chronological order of events. It is not my intention to enter into futile polemics - or to implicate others who, like me were caught up in the matter, but only that the truth is publicly known so that justice is done. This media statement is in line with my declarations to the Police Authorities.

I have been active in the Tourism industry since 1976 and acting as a consultant on Tourism matters since 1990. In early 2006, I had received a phone call from the Honourable Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando (JPO), who had been introduced to me some time before. He informed me that a close friend of his was applying to develop an entertainment facility in Mistra, and that he required a report regarding its compliance to current tourism policies. JPO did not divulge to me that he was the owner of the property.

I met the applicant and his architect, who forwarded me information on the proposed project covering around two tumoli. In May 2006 I (through my company Insite Consultants Ltd) presented a report to the applicant referring to the then various applicable tourism policies and other relevant recreational policies, to demonstrate that the proposed project was compliant with current tourism policies.

The report did not in anyway make reference to the environmental impact. That was not required of such a submission.

In the report I declared that I was at the time a consultant with the then Minister for Tourism, - not with the Malta Tourism Authority (MTA). I had acted in such a capacity with other previous Ministers since 1996. The report also stated that the developer was submitting it to MTA for its endorsement.

Subsequently I invoiced the applicant for the report, and my professional relationship with the applicant ended there. Thereafter I did not in any way act as a consultant to the applicant.

Recently, it came to my knowledge that MTA had already approved the project for the applicant before he had even sought my services through JPO. This MTA approval had been issued in November 2005, through an issue of a Tourism Policy Compliance certificate (TPCC).

In fact this information was not included in my statement to the police, as I was not even aware of it at the time. The MTA issues a TPCC for MEPA purposes in accordance with a procedure which has been established between the two agencies since 2000. A TPCC is considered by MEPA as a limited approval by the MTA, in so far that the proposed development is compliant with the tourism policies and conditions of the operating licence which is eventually issued by MTA.

In June 2007 - over a year after I prepared the report for the applicant - I was appointed as a special consultant to Malta Tourism Authority.

It has been reported (The Times 20/3/2008) that "MTA & Spin Valley shared same consultant". This is incorrect. I was a consultant to the "Spin Valley" project and then this consultation ended. It was only subsequent that I was appointed consultant to the MTA. This factual state does not constitute "sharing" which must be a simultaneous and contemporaneous event.

Sometime in the summer of 2007, I received calls from JPO and a high MEPA/Ministry official in respect of an application which MTA had pending with MEPA concerning the rehabilitation of the Mistra bay. The conversation revolved around MTA's preparedness to establish an alliance with property owners in Mistra to support the management of the bay, as MTA had done in other areas (such as that in Bugibba, and St. Georges Bay.).

I replied that we had already held discussions with another establishment in Mistra to this effect, in the event that the beach rehabilitation takes place. The MTA was prepared to co-operate with whoever had an interest in the area.

I then received another call from JPO, who asked me to attend to a meeting at MEPA to discuss this issue further. I was reluctant to attend, so I advised the MP that I was unable to attend. JPO requested that we meet on another day, but I replied that I could not make it because of another meeting I had scheduled at MEPA on another subject. On that day, as soon as I finished my meeting at MEPA, I was collared there by JPO and the high ranking MEPA/Ministry official. I was requested to attend in an office nearby to discuss the matter. It was a brief meeting in the presence of JPO and two other individuals who I assumed to be MEPA officials, as the persons were not known by me or introduced to me.

The brief conversation revolved around how MTA could support the Mistra application, and about MTA's pending application concerning the Mistra bay rehabilitation. The informal meeting lasted some ten minutes. During the recent police investigation I learnt that these two officials were, in fact, the then Chairman and a member of the DCC board.

Pressure started mounting through repeated communications especially from JPO. Within a few days from the ‘chance' meeting on the MEPA premises, I received a call from the MEPA/Ministry official requesting that MTA write a detailed report to substantiate its support to the application.

He also requested that MTA should convert the outline application it had for the Mistra bay rehabilitation to a full application, so that MEPA could proceed with the processing of this application. I expressed my surprise to this, as MTA's attempts to move this application had remained unanswered for around a year. Furthermore, we normally await the outcome of the outline development application before we proceed with a full permit application.

Nevertheless the official suggested that we comply in order that the MTA application for the Mistra Bay starts moving. During the call he also stated that this report was urgently needed as there was an internal MEPA meeting set within a matter of days.

I am not aware if he was referring to a DCC board meeting. I insisted that he should make this request in writing to MTA. Subsequently I received various communications from JPO asking me to expedite the process of converting the MTA Mistra bay application from outline to full. A full development application was then eventually submitted by MTA sometime in January 2008.

On Friday the 28th September 2007, the Product Development Directorate of MTA received a letter from MEPA requesting that it provides additional information and recommendations regarding the application for the entertainment facility as submitted by the developer DJRL Limited, and also to give an update on the Mistra bay rehabilitation application by MTA.

In response to a call I received form JPO on the matter, I advised him- that I and the Director of the Product Planning Directorate, who were the only two persons that could prepare the report, were scheduled to go abroad on the following Sunday, i.e in the next two days, and that there was not enough time to prepare it. However on the insistence of JPO and the previous call by the Ministry/MEPA official referred to above, I complied and prepared the report, as there was no way that the MTA director could do so in time before we left the country.

Consequently I advised the MTA Product Planning Director, that in the circumstances I would prepare the report as I had previous knowledge on the project.

I must point out that when I had given the report in May 2006 to the developer I had instructed him (as also stated in the said report) that a copy of my report be given to MTA. As MEPA was evidently processing this application, then necessarily MEPA must have prior received the TPCC certificate from MTA. I then assumed that my May 06 report lodged with the MTA was available when the said certificate had been issued, and that this certificate was issued after the submission of the said report. So, in the Sept 07, it was a matter of writing a report to explain how this project was compliant with tourism policies.

Consequently I prepared a four and half page report in the name of MTA. In doing so I drew upon the report I had prepared in 2006 for the applicant as the tourism policies referred to then were one and the same. I also adjourned the report to any interim revised policies.

I wrote the report with the knowledge that my previous report submitted by the applicant formed part of the MTA's documents. This explains why the MTA report included technical parts lifted from the previous report prepared by me for the applicant.

This report was prepared on Saturday the 29th September 2007, and then emailed to the secretary and the MTA Director of Product Development in order that it be sent in the name of the Director as in my role as a consultant it was the practice that I do not sign official documents.

I stress that the report drafted for MTA did not contain a single sentence or argument which was not inconsistent with current tourism policies; effectively, it only substantiated the approval which had already been given by MTA before any involvement on my part.

The auditor's report contains comments which reflect the auditor's personal viewpoint. The MTA report has been described as "very long": this is a relative and subjective term. The MTA report was a response to MEPA's request. Under the circumstances the above said length of pages is not deemed to be long: it is the required response. The auditor's report states that the MTA report is "biased". Again this is an assertion which however has not been in any manner substantiated - nor indeed can it be.

The MTA policies, as applied to the proposed project has all been correctly and properly referred to. Any use of the word "bias" must be followed by irrefutable demonstration of conflicts between the MTA Policy and the application.

One can also add for information purposes that from previous experience, MEPA gives only relative importance to reports issued by MTA. Perhaps the best example is that concerning all the designation of tourism zones within the local plans which went diametrically opposite that recommended by MTA.

It is important to state that my report for the MTA purposely did not make any reference to the environmental impact, as it is not within MTA's remit or competence to do so. This is as per established procedures between MEPA and MTA. MTA has always limited its comments from the tourism point of view - and solely so - and does not take into account any other relevant considerations or studies - such as potential environmental impact; and/or irrespective as to whether the proposed development is within scheme or within outside development zones.

In fact in previous cases MEPA determined its decisions irrespectively as to whether MTA gave its seal of approval, or not. To mention a recent example, MEPA determined against the Ta' Cenc application (which also was within an outside development zone), though it had an MTA approval. Even when NTOM and MTA made a case in favour of the Rabat Golf course application arguing that it was in the national interest to have a golf course, MEPA processed the application on environmental grounds, and refused it.

It is also felt that the MTA's report referred to above of the 28th September 2007, which was issued in response to the MEPA's request should have had no real bearing on the decision taken by the DCC board; it merely substantiated MTA's approval issued in November 2005 from the tourism point of view .

In fact the MEPA's auditor report is very explicit in this regard and whilst the auditor makes various references as to why the DCC should have refused it, he goes as far as to state that "the DCC had ample information to judge the irrelevance of the MTA report... as the proposed development was unacceptable in principle, irrespective of any positive implications it may have had." In this regard the auditor also states: "... the DCC Board was solely responsible for this gross irregularity in the approval of this application."

The consultation process between MEPA and MTA on such matters is conducted directly between the relevant Planning Directorate of MEPA and the Product Development Directorate of MTA, and consequently it is not the practice that such an MTA report is referred to the Chairman, or any board member. It is felt that MEPA's request for additional information was unusual.

It is clear that the MTA's role with MEPA has been fully honoured. Any responsibility I have is towards MTA. On the basis of the above, I discussed this matter with MTA's chairman on Monday March 17th 2008, which was the earliest possible date since he was away from the Island, and since the Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism had not yet been appointed. I then offered (not "tendered") my resignation to the MTA chairman and now await a reply from MTA, hopefully after an internal inquiry is held, in which all the facts are established and my comments duly heard. "

Mr Micallef said he would not be making further comment to the media and reserved his rights against the author/s and the media for any illegal damage to is reputation.