Mepa reforms give rise to controversy

News that the Cabinet is about to discuss a reform of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa), possibly today, is welcome. It was given by the Prime Minister on Friday when he outlined the work carried out by his office over the past year.

Lawrence Gonzi, as he tends to be nowadays, was in a rather bullish mood. Through the media he told the country that the government had carried out 25 per cent of its pre-electoral promises. Work, he said, has started on another 54 per cent. Translated into numbers, 89 promises out of 353 were implemented; another 191 are being done.

If the bookkeeping is correct, the government could be out of a job a year or so before its term is up. Reality is, however, that there is much left to be done, otherwise there would not be the prevailing feeling that things are not quite jelling together. That applies especially to our public road network, both urban and connecting.

If for nothing at all, the claim by Austin Gatt, among other things roads minister, that the parlous state of our roads is due to the Labour government of the 1970s and 1980s, served to raise a laugh. Political humour is rare in Malta.

Outlining one's claimed achievements is not exactly the right place to crack weak jokes. Prime Minister Gonzi did not descend into that lower region. He kept his feet on the ground and did not quite detail the qualitative nature of the quantitative number of promises completed. Rather, he described the past year as one of great challenges, only some of which were actually predicted.

He might have added, only some of which were overcome. The challenges of the global downturn may still have to hit in their full effect. It remains to be seen to what extent the government's way of dealing them will work. The Administration has selected an interesting, perhaps wise approach.

It is helping some of the affected manufacturing companies to retrain their workforce to be prepared for the global economic upturn which, in time, should come about, as well as encouraging the companies to invest. Whether the timeframe will favour us - bringing about a revival in economic demand to allow retrained and re-engineered companies to exploit it in a matching period - is not in the hands of the government. Meanwhile, it is right to do whatever we can do in preparation, particularly to remain competitive.

Reform of Mepa was one of the largest qualitative promises made by the government. The Prime Minister wanted to focus on it and, after the election, took it under his wings, along with tourism. Progress in the latter in terms of the quality of public services has been slow, particularly in the infamous roads sector, where there is nothing at all to take lightly. As for Mepa many people expected reform to come earlier.

The important thing, however, is that it will take place and be effective. A more efficient Mepa should not only reduce claims of equals being treated unequally but also help to allow some projects to kick off more speedily. One does not have to talk of large projects alone, some of which will hang fire anyway in the prevailing economic climate.

There are many smaller applications which, once approved, could give a timely boost to sectors of the construction industry. It could be that the reform to be included in the document which the Prime Minister will present to the Cabinet could contain one item of particular controversy. One of the reform proposals, Dr Gonzi told the media, is for decisions on national planning to be taken by the government, rather than Mepa.

One understands the government's frustration over delays, as well as a belief that it is the Administration that is ultimately accountable for its actions. But a system whereby the private sectors and individuals are subject to Mepa conditions and rigour while the public sector is not would be far less than ideal.

At the very least, national projects should be passed by Mepa - with reasonable timelines attached - for it to vet in the context of policies applicable to everyone else. The government of the day should never seem to be more equal than the rest of us.