Aserious lawyer would scoff at the idea that the judiciary system is flawed to the extent that it needs to be dismantled because there are corrupt or incompetent judges. He would immediately realise that the flaws are more in the humans who run the system than in the system itself.
The Mepa reform blueprint proposal that the present procedure for the issuing of building permits should be dismantled and replaced is the result of the same mistake that the serious lawyer would scoff at. No system is perfect but beefing up a system to avoid its weaknesses and pitfalls is very different from completely dismantling it as if the real problem lies mostly in the system rather than in the humans that run it.
When the original law setting up the Planning Authority was drafted over 16 years ago one main concern was to avoid concentrating the power of issuing building permits in the hands of a few people who could unfairly treat the common citizen or even do worse. The processing of a permit application was purposely set apart from the actual decision to issue or refuse the permit. This was to be taken by a Development Control Commission (DCC) made up of seven persons independent of the Mepa set-up that recommended an approval or refusal of the permit. The citizen who felt aggrieved at their decision had the right to ask the DCC to reconsider it and to appeal to the Planning Appeals Board. The system did not work out perfectly. The biggest defect was Mepa's conscious - but erroneous - decision not to allow any leeway to the case officers processing applications. Any slight breach of one of Mepa's myriad policies meant that the case officer was obliged to make a negative recommendation, even at the expense of abandoning basic common sense. Mepa's instructions to its officers were clear: Avoid discussing issues with applicants and their architects and do not use any discretion as this was solely the responsibility of the DCC.
This led to an inordinate number of occasions when the DCC overturned negative recommendations, mostly so that common sense prevails. The operation of the system in this way led to many misunderstandings and useless hassle. Some five years ago, I wrote to the Director of Planning - copied to the minister - that Mepa should officially allow for discussions between case officers and architects following a draft Development Permit Application (DPA) report recommending a refusal and so avoid too many "negotiations" with the DCC. My appeal fell on deaf ears.
Meanwhile, some people who think they know everything - just because they scratch the surface of what happens at Mepa - started selling the idea that there was something sinister in the DCC overturning negative recommendations. This myth stuck.
The government is now proposing to replace the system on the incredible assumption that the human beings running the new system will not be susceptible to human defects! The checks and balances that attempted to avoid human mistakes - genuine or otherwise - are now being considered as flaws in the system!
The system for obtaining a permit will now essentially consist of overcoming two main hurdles: the validation process in the hands of a vetting officer and the processing of the application in the hands of a case officer. It looks simple and efficient but in practice it will be more difficult to get a permit, unless...
The proposers of this "new" system' are incredibly naïve; they do not realise that they have fashioned the "perfect" opportunity for graft and corruption.
Mr Falzon was the Nationalist minister who piloted the original Development Planning Act in Parliament.