A streamlined system

The debate should not be on the evidence tendered by the Malta Tourism Authority's chairman in the Mistra case. In these proceedings, the MTA chairman neutrally and objectively stated what the MTA policy and practice are when considering and forwarding its views to Mepa vis-à-vis such an application. The MTA chairman has been criticised for such pronouncement, however, this is both unfair and incorrect; if there is to be any criticism it is to be directed at the person/s and period when such a policy was established.

The debate is indeed elsewhere.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism has correctly stated that the environment is to be protected and that one should take into consideration all aspects when considering applications for touristic development.

In his Talking Point Can We Sacrifice One Common Good For Another, Austin Bencini (August 29) quotes the parliamentary secretary's views (in Dr Bencini's words): "The government being the body principally responsible for the undivided common good of the country cannot allow one part of the common good be sacrificed for another. It is the government's role to spell out the general needs of the common good and then it is up to the particular competent agencies to ensure that each carries out its part".

Dr Bencini's subsequent comment was as follows (and I quote): "Therefore, the MTA was wrong to ignore the environmental implications when implementing its policies in promoting tourism".

These two sentences are contradictory. Either it is up to the particular competent agency to ensure that each carries out its part or it is the duty of the particular competent agency to ensure that it carries out all parts. It is this statement which has prompted me to contribute to this debate.

In brief: When an application for a touristic development or indeed for a development which may require the fiat of various bodies (say, the ADT, MTA etc and, of course, Mepa) is presented, should each and every one of these bodies examine the application according to a specified checklist, which would include the environment - and other issues - so that all the checklist is approved by all of them or should one body be the ultimate arbiter on all relevant issues after it receives from each particular body its view on that individual agency's competence which is limited to a specific issue?

The latter system is at present applicable and has been applied in the Mistra case. The former system would mean that each and every one of these government bodies, whether it is ADT, MTA etc, would have before it a presentation made by the applicant on all issues with all the impact assessments being presented to these bodies independently one of the other. These impact assessments can indeed be similar but they can also be different.

Decisions by the various government bodies can be similar but they can also be different. Who will then decide? Doesn't this mean that in this scenario there is duplication, or triplication, a waste of time, energy, money and potentially resultant divergent views which would not lead to any conclusion?

This is the real issue in this debate. The mode of procedure in such application. This issue is to be decided upon by the government. Clearly, a streamlined system, which would lead to a studied non-delayed decision, taking into consideration the various checklist items established by the government and reported upon by the various relevant bodies in the absolute and common good of the whole nation, is the goal.