Culture Minister Dolores Cristina said that one had to heed advice given by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage on cultural and historical property. It had submitted its proposals on the Mepa reform.
Minister Cristina told Parliament that since its inception in 2007, the superintendence had been instrumental in expropriating land near historical sites which had now been preserved.
After opposing development near Ta’ Ħaġrat Temples at Mġarr, the superintendence had also concluded the process for expropriating the land in question. The minister said it would have been better if the land had been expropriated before the development permits had been issued. This also showed the need of better cooperation and collaboration between the different government entities.
Her ministry was trying to strengthen all the entities within the sector.
Mrs Cristina said the superintendence had to be strengthened and new structures set up so that it could perform its duties better. She augured that this would be done over the coming months.
Action plans on the restoration and embellishment of Fort St Angelo had been drafted, and work would start soon. Buildings which had been erected at a later period within the fort would be demolished because they were not compatible with the historical nature of the building. This included a swimming pool.
Mrs Cristina said €9.5 million had been invested for the preservation and embellishment of the Tarxien and Ġgantija temples and St Paul’s Catacombs. Land had also been expropriated.
The Bill focused on historical buildings which were of public use and had to be safeguarded. It was everyone’s duty to protect these sites. In the past historical buildings had been converted into commercial establishments and lost much of their historical character.
The Bill gave formal recognition to historical property. Such property could be expropriated if it was considered significant for the national memory and identity.
It also made it mandatory for the authorities to see to their moral obligations. Local councils and NGOs had increased their participation in the preservation and management of historical sites.
The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage had concluded a number of guardianship deeds. This included the deed with Fondazzjoni Wirt Artna to set up a heritage park in the Upper Barrakka Gardens and another with the Tarxien local council.
Minister Cristina said that the Bill offered peace of mind to owners on fair compensation through established procedures. The amendments reflected the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg insofar as the fundamental rights of property owners and the right to the enjoyment of the national heritage were concerned.
Concluding, she said that a lot of work still needed to be done, but there was the will to do it and raise awareness among citizens, especially in schools.
Nationalist MP Beppe Fenech Adami said various governments had taken over land in the best national interests. A situation had arisen in which many land owners had either not received any compensation, or had received compensation that could only be termed ridiculous. The principle should hold that any such land should be compensated for with a fair price.
The expropriation process had taken on new, bad aspects in the 1970s, to the extent that to date compensation had not been settled. People who had been living in government apartments for several years today effectively owned no part of their homes, and quite a number did not even appreciate their precarious position at law.
It was refreshing to hear Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi express his resolve to get to the bottom of these situations as soon as possible. The outstanding amount was €47 million, excluding expropriations that had not yet been given an official value.
Today, after government action in 1993, this sort of scenario was no longer possible because funds for expropriation had to be paid up front.
Dr Fenech Adami said that between 2001 and 2008 the government had paid out €73 million for expropriated lands.
The importance of safeguarding the national heritage was on everybody’s lips, but opposition spokesmen had said little was being done in effect. In truth, the government’s track record in this regard, especially in Valletta, spoke for itself. One must not forget the importance of funds being available.
Dr Fenech Adami said it was wrong for the opposition to allege that the government was concentrating on Valletta to the exclusion of the rest of the country. The facts spoke for themselves.
Dr Azzopardi and his department had undertaken to identify expropriated lands that were being held by the government, sometimes even mismanaged, when national interests would be better served by relinquishing the expropriated property to its rightful owners or NGOs that could make better use of it. This line of policy should be maintained.
Concluding, he said the Bill was heading in the right direction by recognising the importance of national heritage and appropriate compensation for expropriated property or relinquishment thereof.
Nationalist MP Frederick Azzopardi said that the chairman of the Land Arbitration Board, a magistrate, would not be bound by a unanimous decision taken by the two architects on the board.
There would be more transparency and justice. Both parties would now have the right to appeal, not only on points of law but also on the valuation should a party feel that such compensation was unfair. Both parties would also be able to question the architects’ report.
Francis Zammit Dimech (PN) described the Bill as a real contribution to cultural heritage and the protection of Maltese historical and cultural identity. At the same time the Bill protected the rights of private owners by providing for fair compensation.
It defined what amounted to historical buildings, including that property which constituted cultural property.
Dr Zammit Dimech expressed his agreement with the involvement of the Committee of Guarantee, established under the Cultural Heritage Act, in the decision as to whether a property was of historical or cultural value. This reflected Malta’s commitment to protecting the Maltese identity and national memory. It would make present and future generations more aware of Maltese culture and history through conservation and restoration of that property.
He also expressed his support for the widening of the definition of “public purpose” to include the expropriation of property for the furtherance of tourism and the generation of employment.
Expropriation of property to increase cultural tourism would continue to strengthen this industry, which contributed 25 per cent to Malta’s economy. In the current economic situation the expropriation of property for the implementation of projects that would protect employment and create new jobs was also a positive development.
Dr Zammit Dimech augured that these amendments would serve as an eye-opener to owners of property of historical or cultural value, and would encourage them to make these properties available to the public. Only then would historical or cultural privately-owned property not be subject to expropriation.
Joseph Falzon (PN) said that the government needed to send out a message to those who owned property with cultural heritage to take care of their property.
There was an impression that the government was acting arrogantly when expropriating land. He referred to legislation enacted in 1993, whereby the fundamental principles on how to expropriate land were established.
Mr Falzon spoke about the importance of cultural heritage. But the abundance of Malta’s cultural heritage resulted in people not appreciating it enough.
Concluding, Mr Falzon said that as a nation, Maltese people needed to have cultural heritage at heart, in order to appreciate it and to take care of it.