Editorial

When Lawrence Gonzi pledged just weeks before the election that he would personally oversee the reform of the beleaguered Malta Environment and Planning Authority, the Mistra development controversy had yet to emerge. What has become known so far about this application, and what is likely to emerge if and when the case ends up in court, is making Dr Gonzi's already tall order that far more difficult to handle.

Commenting editorially on the findings of an inquiry into a mudslide at Xemxija, The Times had made what must have seemed to many as a superfluous statement: "Accountability must prevail. Otherwise, the house of Mepa will be left hanging in mid-air just as the Xemxija structure did".

That was mid-April 2006. What has happened since? One would like to think that action was taken to improve things. Alas, as last week's report by Mepa audit officer Joe Falzon into the Mistra development permit indicated, the situation is far from rosy. Indeed, the Mistra controversy highlights the fact that problems transcend Mepa.

"The audit office is faced with the approval of an application where there is not the slightest justification for this action. And the DCC Division A is solely responsible for what happened".

In view of such a categorical statement, rather than arguing that no action is taken against the DCC in question because its board members had resigned - ironically, following another damning report by Mr Falzon about a supermarket in the limits of Safi - the audit officer should have proposed that an inquiry be opened into the operations of DCC Division A as then constituted.

And in order to remove any shadow of doubt that could loom over it now or in the future, the Malta Tourism Authority board ought likewise to order a thorough inquiry on the basis of the comments made by Mr Falzon.

Mr Falzon notes among other things that a "biased" report by the MTA "definitely had a bearing on the decision of the DCC". He asks: "Why did the MTA choose to write a very long report to try to justify the proposed development?"

The role of a consultant involved in the matter also needs to be clarified.

The person in question on Monday publicly described himself as a former consultant to the Tourism Minister who was later appointed special consultant to the MTA. Four days earlier the tourism watchdog said the MTA report was drawn up by the "then consultant to the chairman of MTA on product development".

It also said that this person resigned from his position with MTA when the Mepa auditor's report was published on March 17 and his resignation was accepted. However, the person insists he had offered and not tendered his resignation, adding he was awaiting a reply from the MTA.

It would also be fitting to find out how is it possible that Mepa received an application for the "utilisation of an open area as an open-air entertainment area" and the MTA issued a tourism policy compliance certificate for the development of a restaurant without anybody apparently noticing the discrepancy at the time!

The Falzon report pointed out that "On September 28, 2007 further consultations were carried out with the Malta Tourism Authority. On October 1, 2007, the MTA replied with a detailed letter and report on the proposal". One wonders whether it is normal for the MTA to reply through detailed letters and reports in the space of three days, which includes a weekend.

The MTA has explained that, when asked to do so by Mepa, its views and comments are based on considerations related to the MTA's policies and tourism product needs and requirements. Does it mean the MTA does not give due weight to, say, environmental and other considerations which, of course, could have a deleterious effect on the tourism product? The Falzon report into the Mistra application has opened a can of worms. The worst that can happen is to allow those worms to infest other areas.