PM chides opposition over Mepa reform

The Prime Minister yesterday reproached the opposition for not having presented its views on the proposed Mepa reform, but promised that if Labour wrote to him officially he would authorise an official presentation and would look forward to decisions fundamental for the country.

Replying to criticism during the debate on the estimates of the authority, Dr Gonzi told Parliament that the Mepa reform had proved to be one of the most difficult and sensitive reforms undertaken by the government. He had received constructive criticism from all sectors of the population, except the opposition.

Dr Gonzi accused opposition spokesman on planning Roderick Galdes and opposition spokesman on the environment Leo Brincat of trying to please more than one sector at the same time.

He had heard no concrete suggestion from Mr Brincat on what better to do with Mepa. The opposition MP had asked if architect Robert Musumeci was a consultant for the Office of the Prime Minister or for Mepa in the reform process. The Prime Minister again denied the allegation, saying this had been set out in a government statement. For the Mepa reform the government had used specialists of the Management Efficiency Unit, especially in the second phase of the project.

Dr Gonzi disagreed with Mr Galdes that the report lacked direction. Mepa had never lacked direction and it had made a huge contribution to the country. Things could not have been better, as Mr Galdes was understood to have said, with the PAPB system when everything used to be decided by the minister. The country was still labouring under the great misdoings of the past.

It was true that Mepa had taken some controversial decisions, and the debate would continue. But controversy must be decided one way or another, and within a shorter timeframe, Dr Gonzi said.

Mepa itself wanted to develop into a self-financing organisation. Eventually there must be a system whereby the developer must be prepared to pay for his application to be processed.

Answering where the major projects were, the Prime Minister said they were the projects that the government had started on, especially with regard to Grand Harbour and Marsamxett, and which were to be carried out by the private sector rather than the government. Plans for the other side of Grand Harbour were underway too. Even the plans for the entrance to Valletta formed part of the project, but this particular part would be funded by the government.

He agreed that all levels of Mepa were still faced with huge challenges. The reform must include the pending appeals which nobody knew how or when would be concluded. There were also other problems to address, but he was hoping to give more details with the announcement of the reform.

Dr Gonzi reminded that Mepa was very important for the development of the country because it was meant to determine how to use remaining spaces with an eye on the environment. It was an essential link in the chain of holistic and sustainable progress.

The President's speech at the opening of the current legislature had been pegged to a policy of sustainable development. But the opposition seemed to be still unaware of the relation between the Mepa reform and several government initiatives.

These included the rent reform, which was an integral part of sustainable development and the use of property; the registration and licensing regulations to encourage private vehicles with least emissions and the discouragement of second-hand vehicles; the local councils regulations which even with a reformed Mepa would still be fundamental for the implementation of sustainable development; the use of energy, including the tariffs to encourage less waste and greater investment in alternative energy; and the ongoing reform in public transport, which still had a long way to go.

The Prime Minister said the chain of all these links should make one realise the extent of the holistic strategy for a qualitative leap towards surmounting the challenges and opportunities facing Malta.

This was the country with the fifth or sixth greatest population density in the world, certainly in the EU; and the greatest density in the EU of vehicles on the roads, up to six or seven times greater than the second-placed country. It was the country where even the location of waste management and alternative energy resources was controversial. This was why reform must be holistic, and the reform of Mepa in particular must be an integral part of the whole.

Dr Gonzi said that after analysing all the suggestions received, including those of Mepa employees, the clear final outcome would be measured only if the changes would lead to higher levels of transparency and accountability in Mepa, which was the organisation most open to the public even though things could yet get better. Even so, Mepa had not waited for the whole reform plan because under its present chairman Austin Walker it had already introduced changes for greater transparency and accountability.

The Mepa reform must lead to more being done, including on the function of the auditor, even though listening to an auditor did not perforce mean adopting every suggestion. The lack of internal auditing at Mepa was a badly-felt shortcoming that needed to be addressed in order to ensure a more efficient system.

The Prime Minister pointed out that efficiency must not mean creating the proverbial blind kittens or let people wait for decisions for years. Addressing this particular aspect should not necessarily mean additional applications.

Mr Galdes had given one to understand that lack of consistency in Mepa decisions led to uncertainty, but Dr Gonzi appealed for one to be careful about this. If a mistake was ever made, this should not be turned into a principle just because it became a precedent. He did not agree with the Mepa appeals board's reasoning along these lines. Nothing could be perfect, and mistakes of the past still had to be rectified.

On enforcement, he said that a higher level had been attained over the past months, and recalled that an apposite Bill had not made it in time to pass before the end of the previous legislature.

Concluding, the Prime Minister said that quite besides the Mepa reform, the government had set itself a target of closely examining a number of very important published policies with a view to identifying loopholes exposed by experience, and which had been used to maximise development. The Mepa policy must go hand in glove with a holistic strategy to cover not just the particular moment but also the longer term.

At the beginning of the sitting, Parliamentary Secretary Mario De Marco said development applications last year had decreased by three per cent. Applications for major projects numbered 452, an increase of 27 per cent. The authority had dealt with 3,605 complaints and 20 enforcement actions had been taken.

Two new policy development briefs had been introduced - one on Ħal Ferħ holiday village and the other regarding caves in Birżebbuġa. At present Mepa was working on a revision of major policies, including those on high-rise buildings and wind energy.

The authority had also scheduled land of natural beauty, archaeological sites, churches and windmills. The number of balconies benefiting from the authority' subsidy scheme was 1,112.

Of the 27 sites which the authority had suggested to be included in Natura 2000, two were new maritime zones.

Through EU funds, Mepa had managed to secure its fifth air monitoring station in Attard and the ADT was to implement measures to control vehicle pollution. The EU had also approved 12 Mepa proposals, worth €575,000.

Philip Mifsud (PN) said that since Mepa was a regulator, it was difficult to be popular with everybody. Its reform was an electoral promise, it was underway and it would leave the desired results.

He criticised certain entities for failing to answer Mepa within the 30-day period whether they had any objections to planning applications. Other entities' inefficiencies should not be put on Mepa, Mr Mifsud said.

He praised the authority's accessibility and transparency as positive.

Concluding, Mr Mifsud said that the Mepa reform should also address the fact that applications from would-be developers which did not deserve to be approved should be rejected immediately. In such a reform, the government should be courageous to address situations in the best interests of citizens and a future with a better environment.

Nationalist MP Ċensu Galea said that Malta would not have been the same without Mepa. Environmental groups should remain critical, but they should feel the duty to criticise situations going against the authority's policies.

For every application for development, there should be reasons both in favour and against. He referred to the Prime Minister's comments that an ODZ was an ODZ, but the Prime Minister was not against agricultural development.

Mr Galea said that DCC board members were the most consistent people with regard to decisions.

Joseph Falzon (PN) said that talking to people in the construction sector, one would realise that the rules were rigid and binding on everyone alike.

Before Mepa decided whether to issue a permit or reject an application, all parties were given the opportunity to bring their arguments forward. Malta had become a country of consultation, but critics gave their opinions only after decisions were taken.

Concluding, Mr Falzon said that everyone should be brought on board to help Mepa improve the country.