PL discusses Mepa reform
The Labour Party’s position on the proposed Mepa reform was that of the citizen, party leader Joseph Muscat said this morning.
Speaking during a special meeting of the party’s parliamentary group, the Labout leader said the people’s position was that the country should not become a concrete jungle but those proposing development should not be treated as criminals.
The meeting was discussing an independent report on the reform commissioned by the party some months ago.
The commission, Dr Muscat said, held a number of meetings with stakeholders and prepared the ground for a discussion on which the party’s final position would be based. It worked independently.
The PL, Dr Muscat said, agreed that decisions should be transparent and that one should shoulder responsibilities.
The party believed a complete change was needed in the sector for the tax payers, and not just the experts, to understand the procedures with which decisions were taken.
Decisions had to be open to scrutiny and objectors should know what was happening.
Even the system of how appointments were given should be changed. There had to be a change in mentality and not just in administration.
The PL was agreeing and insisting that there should be certainty that people applying for development in the same zone were treated in the same manner. What was good for the goose should be good for the gander, he said.
The PL also believed in practicality and with reducing bureaucracy, which did not have anything to do with accountability.
He and his party did not agree that a reform should mean an increase in fees making them prohibitive.
The party agreed on the need for enforcement.
Dr Muscat said the PL believed in the need for a strategic long term change rather than in the operative changes being proposed by the government.
The discussion within the party, he said, was continuing and should lead to the establishment of guidelines which should help the government implement the reform.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
5 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Alfred Mangion
Jul 25th 2009, 23:45
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander"!!!! Can, therefore, Dr Muscat explain why what was good for PA 00362/98 was not as good for other Planning Applications?
J Martinelli
Jul 25th 2009, 20:53
"Dr Muscat said the PL believed in the need for a strategic long term change rather than in the operative changes being proposed by the government"
Can Dr. Muscat/LP ever deliver a statement which is not ambiguous? What does he actually mean by '' the need of strategic long term change rather than in the operative changes being proposed by the government "?
Does he mean that the anticipated changes should be implemented over the coming years rather than take effect immediately? And what happens in the meantime?
I like the part which says, "...that people applying for development in the same zone were treated in the same manner. What was good for the goose should be good for the gander, he said". What this translates into is, 'There was nothing wrong in Dr. Scerri's application and subsequent approval by MEPA since similar projects were approved by MEPA in the past and no opposition was recorded, therefore what those two or more landowners were able to build was acceptable to the environment, so Dr. Scerri's should be as well. I fully agree and Dr. Muscat, giving one rare positive advice, should talk to FAA and Mr. Falzon about it!
APScerri
Jul 25th 2009, 15:38
Re: The party agreed on the need for enforcement.
Is it true that at least one of those at the meeting ie a PL MP (ie representative of the people) is at present under an enforcement notice re his property in Gozo? What is Dr Muscat going to do about this in a transparent way?
joe portelli
Jul 25th 2009, 14:37
@
edwin cachia
sour grapes.is soltu int.kollox hazin li jghamel il partit laburista
Edwin Cachia
Jul 25th 2009, 13:39
As usual PL are 13 months late. During the 13 month consultation process PL was silent. They didn't make one proposal ! Now that the reform document was published they met ' taparsi ' they are doing something.
What are the conclusions of this meeting ? which proposals are being presented ?
U halluna !!! X'tahsbuh il-poplu ?!!