Opposition spokesman on the environment Leo Brincat claimed yesterday that Mepa had to dance to the Cabinet's tune and with the Mepa reform bill, the House was being expected to sign a blank cheque, voting on a document that was still to be seen. At least there must be an executive summary before the Bill got to committee stage.
Opening the opposition's comments on the Environment and Development Planning Bill, Mr Brincat said one would have expected a serious analysis of the authority's strengths and weaknesses seen over the years. The reform of Mepa had long been a carrot dangled before the public, particularly before elections.
Mepa could not be regarded in a vacuum but was the by-product of a political system which had shown that everything depended on who wielded policies and how, rather than the policies themselves. Sometimes it had even gone diametrically opposite to the policies it was supposed to be wielding.
The authority's mission statement was indeed impeccable, with strong emphasis and commitment placed on the safeguarding of heritage for the nation's children. But all notions of transparency and enforcement had been systematically trampled on by Lawrence Gonzi's administration.
Malta was the only EU state with land use and the environment handled by a single authority.
Mr Brincat said it was obvious that too many times people at Mepa had to work on messages from the OPM on reform proposals in blatant cases of political opportunism. During the tenure of Minister George Pullicino's responsibilities for Mepa there had been a haemorrhage of votes over the dragging of feet and rigidity on certain cases and different measures according to the people involved, controversial decisions and ODZ extensions.
The Prime Minister wanted to please everybody, including those who were responsible for illegal development. His involvement in Mepa had initially been seen as encouraging, but some Mepa decisions had still gone counter to technical advice from its own people.
Environmental NGOs had managed to instil greater sensitivity in the public, and certainly did not deserve intimidation and character assassination for their efforts.
The Bill would change little or nothing in its present form. Everybody had expected that the Bill would introduce a culture change.
Mepa's own auditor had repeatedly shown up deficiencies, but he had been ignored without justification by the DCC, which had also overturned decisions of the planning directorate in a bad case of abuse of power.
Mr Brincat said it was generally agreed that the environment should no longer be treated as the Cinderella - except by the Gonzi administration. Repeated calls for inquiry into the workings of the DCC had been ignored, even when it had been discovered that an applicant's architect was also presiding over a Mepa board.
It was deplorable that the government had been quick where it suited it, putting its own people in strategic positions who would still be there no matter how the legislation on Mepa developed. What was really needed was a root-and-branch reform of Mepa without eventually facing a fait accompli.
The government's professing its desire to stand up to corruption rang false, especially when the Prime Minister and the Mepa chairman attacked the auditor's reports and praised his efforts where it suited them.
In the year before the 2008 elections the Mepa auditor's efforts had been stymied, to the tune of asking him to suspend his activity until re-approved by a committee which had never met. The Mepa audit office still had no investigating officer.
Mr Brincat said it was very disquieting to see the government proposing new penalties for wrongdoings when previously-decided penalties had still not been introduced.
Unless personal accountability could become a reality, nobody could be held responsible for all that went wrong in the authority. The people were expecting clear answers from the politicians. The DCC must stop adopting ad hoc policies.
In consultations with the opposition, NGOs had complained that certain chairmen of commissions were wearing boots too large for their feet. Such nominees should be qualified and have managerial administrative qualities. He complained that strategic posts were left vacant for years, and there was a serious lack of understanding. The development process was considered as too bureaucratic and inadequate.
Mr Brincat said that what the opposition wanted was an implementation plan with timeframes.
There were government entities that were not following the law. In 2006 the auditor had identified five such cases but he had been ignored. He had said 17 per cent of complaints were on lack of enforcement, but the auditor's recommendations had never been adopted. There was nothing to hold people back from illegal development. There were more than 73,000 pending enforcement notices, some 5,400 going back three years, others 10 years. The Bill should have provided for a file audit trail.
Mr Brincat also called for a separate environmental agency.
Welcoming the code of ethics and procedure guidelines for boards, Mr Brincat said the reform must address corruption and the culture of omertà. How many were the cases when Mepa had taken the initiative to safeguard the environment? This was manifestly missing in the case of the black dust in the south of Malta.
Mepa would be judged by its own actions. Which scandal would have been averted with a reformed Mepa?
The enforcement directorate should have the faculty to act on its own. It was not the system that was wrong but the individuals who took inconsistent decisions. Throughout the years, the PN government had seen Mepa as a stumbling block.
Mr Brincat suggested a cooling-off period for former members of Mepa boards to go back to their private practice.
Architects must act responsibly and not try to find loopholes, which must be plugged before the Bill became law.
The Prime Minister did not have any good credentials on the environment. There should be no mini-gods or tin-pot dictators.
He said refusal of applications had dropped from 1,990 in 2007 to 125 in the months before the general election in 2008.
It was not acceptable to eradicate sustainable development from the Development Bill only to introduce a new Bill later. The opposition was not against new legislation, but it must have a draft of this Bill before the present Bill was approved. Admittedly, the provisions of the present legislation would continue in force, but they were a dead letter.
Mr Brincat said that local councils were to have an important role in the identification of illegal development. It was important that the Appeals Board would have the strength to stop illegal development.
The opposition was in favour of eliminating the right to reconsideration, but there would be a few bona fide cases which must be addressed.
The environmental agency should also take care of spatial planning, thus having a holistic approach. Spatial planning was not even mentioned in Malta. It was indeed a difficult decision to choose between the land and the space around it.
The opposition would not like to see just a parliamentary review committee, but an effective committee like the PAC, which would be led by the opposition.
Whoever was appointed on Mepa boards and commissions must be integral and competent and declare their assets at regular intervals. This would lead to peace of mind that nobody was lining their pockets.
It would be a good thing if the opposition was given the right to refer cases to the Mepa auditor and discuss individual cases with him. After years of suspicion, more transparency was needed.
Mr Brincat said it seemed that the government had already rejected the separation of the environment and planning issues. If the government was not going to take the opposition's fundamental principles on board, it should not expect to have a consensus on the Bill.
One must also ensure that Mepa should no longer be used as a weapon of incumbency. During the run-up to the last general election Mepa was at the forefront of such actions. There needed to be effective parliamentary scrutiny. It was unclear what had led the government to take this negative attitude. If the planning process was wrongfully applied, it would serve better the PN than the national interest. Mepa should be free of political interference and accountable only to the electorate. But as the Bill stood, it was vague and did not address all issues.
If the government continued to oppose a scrutiny committee it would be transmitting a negative message even to the EU, which had environmental issues at heart. All conflicts of interest must be curbed and minutes of all meetings must be kept.
Mr Brincat suggested that abusers should not only be stricken off the Mepa registers but should also lose their charter status.
The opposition wanted sound procedures that would lead to transparency, certainty and enforcement, not just lip-service. Where an EIA was necessary, this should be carried out and its findings made open to the public.
Above all, Mepa should give its employees whistleblower guarantees.
One would have expected that as a sign of commitment, the government would have published a State of the Environment Report, even if this would be two years late. This report was last published in 2006, Mr Brincat said.
The Prime Minister had failed in Mepa. It was not true that the environment was one of the government's priorities.
There could not be situations similar to the turning-off of precipitators at the power station, where Mepa and Enemalta kept blaming each other.
Moreover, while Mepa had argued that all Malta was at risk with regard to nitrates in 2004, neither Mepa nor the Malta Resources Authority had done anything to control the situation. The highest accusation that the government faced was that by its own members, such as former minister Jesmond Mugliett who had stated that "people cannot trust the whole system".