‘Wider scope of public purpose could lead to abuse’

Labour MP Charles Buhagiar has warned the government that the wider scope of the term “public purpose” in the Land Acquisitions (Public Purposes) Ordinance (Amendment) Bill could lead to abuse.

Speaking during the debate in second reading, Mr Buhagiar said existing legislation was precise and to the point as to what constituted public purpose. However, the Bill was widening the scope to include “the generation of employment, the furtherance of tourism, the promotion of culture, the preservation of the national or historical identity or the economic well being of the State”.

He said that this was such a wide definition that a hotel owner who would not manage to buy adjacent property directly from the owners to expand his hotel could ask the government to expropriate that property. Similarly, an entrepreneur could ask for the expropriation a field in the name of a project which would employ a number of workers.

Mr Buhagiar said this was of particular concern because the citizen’s right to property would otherwise no longer be safeguarded. He suggested that the clause be revised, as would be the clause empowering the minister to expropriate historical property.

Small changes had been made to the clause concerning the powers of the minister to expropriate historical buildings but it still needed further revision. The opposition wanted to ensure what the minister could and could not do.

Mr Buhagiar complained that there were too many government entities deciding on what was historical property or not. The time had come to have one register according to pre-established criteria.

He said the Bill provided that all historical property not open to the public could be expropriated by the government. This meant that tip-top residential palaces in Mdina, for example, which are not open to the public, could be taken over in the name of public purposes. Mr Buhagiar said that this did not make sense and access to the public should not come into it.

His clause-by-clause critique often led to Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi, who is piloting the Bill, to explain the finer points of the law.

Mr Buhagiar asked whether the Constitutional Court was now being by-passed in favour of the Land Acquisition Board. Dr Azzopardi said that this right was in addition to and not in lieu of the court.

The Labour MP said it could well be that a land could be taken abusively without there being a public purpose. If property was built on that land, the owner could not be given back the land. What kind of compensation was he going to be given? This was not fair.

Clause 6 laid down how the value of a historical building shall be calculated if the property was sold for educational, touristic and cultural purposes. Mr Buhagiar said this should also include residential purposes.

He admitted it is not easy to make a valuation of a historical building but the wording “according to accepted guidelines and practice” was too vague. Some sort of yardstick should be laid down, like “internationally-accepted guidelines”.

Mr Buhagiar asked how could a valuation be made if the property was leased on temporary emphyteusis? Mr Azzopardi said the clause referred to property on perpetual emphyteusis which had been redeemed.

Mr Buhagiar said it was also unfair to peg the valuation of the property in respect of the transfer causa mortis.

He said that under Clause 9, the function of the two architects sitting with the chairman (a magistrate) of the Land Acquisition Board has been regaled to that of consultants. He also objected to the part of the Bill which stated how architects should draw up their valuation report on property and suggested the government consults the Chamber of Architects for a happier wording

He asked whether the Bill would be retro-active and apply to pending cases. Dr Azzopardi said that matters of procedure would apply retroactively but the substantive part was not applicable to cases still before the board.

Mr Buhagiar said that the definition of public purpose would also hit agricultural land which could also be expropriated at the government’s whim.

Concluding, the Labour MP said he appreciated the idea behind the Bill but the government priorities were not in order. There were many historical sites in a pitiful state and while the government would find €80 million for a new parliament, it could not find €100,000 for restoration of Fort Ricasoli and the bastions which were crumbling. He also criticised the canopy over Ħaġar Qim and Mnajdra saying these were taken out of the context of the landscape.

Continuing his speech from Monday, Owen Bonnici (PL) said it was useless to be giving the government the power to expropriate property that was deemed to be of historical national importance if it lacked the competence, the vision or the means to care for and administer them. The protection of national heritage was not only labouring under a lack of resources, but the job was divided among a number of organisations, all of which equally lacked resources.

The fortifications were crying out for attention, but did there have to be a Superintendence of Fortifications besides that for the Palace and Mepa’s Heritage Advisory Committee, among others? The answer surely lay in grouping all available resources together.

Interest in the protection of national heritage was not lacking in any sector of the population, and one way of measuring a nation’s cultural strength was through appreciation of its heritage. But there was no doubt that much more could be done, and better.

In 2002 the then Minister for Culture Louis Galea had proposed a number of entities for the protection of national heritage, including the drawing up of a national inventory. But the efforts to do this vast work fell on just five persons, including the Superintendent of National Heritage, with a budget of just over €300,000. How could the government expect to be taken seriously when it said it had the national heritage at heart?

Dr Bonnici suggested a committee to group together all aspects of national heritage. A Committee of Guarantee had been brokered, but this had only one part-timer at its disposal and no funds – and the committee had never met because it was not even constituted. At great personal sacrifice the effort had been taken up by President Emeritus Ugo Mifsud Bonnici.

The erstwhile operational agency, now Heritage Malta, was debt-ridden to the tune of about €1 million. How could the agency seriously be expected to do the job when Fort St Angelo was closed because the restoration of its fortifications alone would cost a minimum of €700,000 out of a budget of €500,000? The government wished to see Heritage Malta eventually becoming self-sufficient, but this could not be done at the expense of real care for the national heritage.

Dr Bonnici said Maltese conservationists deserved to be given due recognition through the issue of a warrant. His vision was to see the Institute of Conservation as a division of the University of Malta, which indeed should also embrace all aspects of heritage protection.

Mepa’s appreciation of national heritage was horrendous, to put it mildly. It had only one person to schedule all items of national heritage. To make matters much worse, the authority’s Development Control Commission (DCC) could ignore rulings by Mepa’s own divisions. A case in point had been the Knights’ Armoury at Qormi, on which the DCC had overridden Mepa’s own recommendation of the issue of an emergency conservation order.

There was a dire lack of inventory of recently-discovered national heritage and its historical value. Two cases in point were the important archaeological remains that had been discovered under St George’s Square in Valletta and almost the whole of Mdina.

Verdala Bastion was supposed to be the depository of items of discovered national heritage, but there were countless items of which a decent inventory had not been made after whole years.

Concluding, Dr Bonnici said that in spite of all the good intentions, it could not be seriously believed that the government really cared for the national heritage.

Nationalist MP Frederick Azzopardi said the Bill was manifestly good because it had the approval of both sides of the House.

The mission of the three-pronged Government Property Division was to make the best possible use of public heritage for the greatest public benefit, to prevent any pilferage of such property, and to speed up the process of payment for expropriated property, among other purposes. The Bill under debate specifically involved the expropriation of privately-held property for public purposes.

The fact that sometimes it took several years to pay compensation for expropriated land had on occasion led to the expropriation of much more land than was actually needed. A lot of progress had been achieved since the government had started the practice of expropriating only when it knew exactly what it needed.

The private holder could go to court only to challenge the amount of compensation, but not to challenge the expropriation itself, even if it was felt that the expropriation had been carried out for dubious purposes. A more recent amendment had been introduced to allow an appeal. The process had become even more transparent after 1987, through the European Court of Human Rights.

Mr Azzopardi spoke at length about the development of private land expropriation by the government over the years.

The Bill was introducing new concepts for Malta which would, however, not affect the workings of the Land Arbitration Board. The objective of the new concepts was more transparency and consistency where national heritage was concerned.

Mr Azzopardi remained in possession when the debate was suspended at 9 p.m. The debate continues on Monday.