Opposition spokesman calls for PAC-style planning committee

Opposition spokesman on infrastructure Charles Buhagiar yesterday suggested the widening of the proposed House committee on planning and development, provided under the Environment and Development Planning Bill, to be remodelled on the House Public Accounts Committee so that it could "provide true transparency and accountability" as it would be able to supervise decisions taken.

Speaking during the debate on the second reading of the Bill, Mr Buhagiar said that the committee should have seven, not five, members, and should be chaired by an opposition MP rather than the minister responsible for Mepa. It should not only take care of matters related to the Structure Plan and the local plans, but should have the function of auditing decisions. The agenda would not be set by the government, but by the opposition which had an interest to see that Mepa worked efficiently, consistently and accountably.

Earlier, Mr Buhagiar said it was a step in the right direction to have a Strategic Planning Unit within the ministry. Mepa should not be responsible for strategy but only for adopting those policies set by the government of the day.

Criticism levelled at Mepa was not on policies but on decisions taken during the time an application was being processed by the case officers. It was not uncommon for case officers' decisions to be overturned by the Development Control Commission. He, therefore, called for architects to continue to be allowed to consult the DCC.

Case officers should familiarise themselves with each application and not rely solely on Structure Plan policies. Mr Buhagiar suggested they inspect all sites where development was being applied for.

The one-stop shop concept of Mepa had ended, putting a new financial burden on the application. Before, the Mepa fee used to incorporate all consultations with other government entities. The new process dictated that all documents from these bodies be procured and supplied to Mepa with the application. Mr Buhagiar suggested that all entities that had an input in development applications should have representative offices at Mepa. This was already being done insofar as the Health Department was concerned.

Interjecting, Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco said the government was working towards this concept.

Continuing, Mr Buhagiar said the opposition was against amalgamating the environment with development, as the former would always be subjected to the latter and come out the loser. The planning set-up should be distinct from the environment protection arm, which could fall under the aegis of the Malta Resources Authority. No planning permit was issued if an application was not in conformity with health legislation. By the same token, it should be mandatory that no permit should be issued if not in conformity with environmental laws.

He called for more seriousness on documents regarding the environment. Certain areas were designated as special areas of conservation, even when a few metres away there was a quarry.

Mr Buhagiar referred to the present executive committee, an ad hoc committee formed by some Mepa board members and some Mepa officials to discuss projects of a certain entity. This committee was not defined by law and therefore had no legal standing.

He was against the DCC members being full-timers, as this would deprive the board of the practicality of certain architects. It was not right for certain DCC members to be deciding an application at one time, and at another defending a client when the latter's application was being discussed.

He called for a better monitoring of case officers' performance because there were instances when certain applications had remained on the same officer's desk for months. He personally had applications dating back to 2005.

Mr Buhagiar said objectors who made their cases before Mepa had become more important because green sites had decreased and development was, therefore, within built-up areas. Many objected to excavation works. If the law dictated that this had to be five metres away from the adjoining walls, why was this not indicated in the permit? However, if there was an agreement between the parties concerned, then this should be presented to Mepa. Objectors' comments should be reflected in permits.

The outline development permit was being eliminated but, Mr Buhagiar said, the developer should know what he could build in any area. If a developer set his eyes on a government-owned parcel of land and consulted the Lands Department as to what he would be charged, the department would ask him to get a building permit and then the price would be set. What would the new situation be with the elimination of the outline development permit? Today, there was the comfort of checks and balances of DCC decisions.

Interjecting, Dr de Marco said the development brief would also be approved by the board, and the applicant would have the right to make submissions to the same board.

The end of the government's subvention meant that Mepa would have to charge applicants €7 million more than it was charging today. But he pointed out that Mepa also had an environmental section, and it was not fair for the burden to be shouldered by developers only, especially considering the impact on the property market which was not passing through good times.

Concluding, Mr Buhagiar said that, as this was an enabling law, the opposition wanted the comfort of having the proposed legal notices beforehand. He warned that any actions Mepa took should not be directed at curbing development but at making development sustainable.

George Vella (PL) said the Parliamentary Secretary had a hard nut to crack in Mepa. He had always favoured a cushion between the developer and the politician, because allegations of pressure by developers had always existed.

As a member of the first Planning Authority board, he had seen that by 1996 the authority was facing serious problems and heavy bureaucracy. Ministers had accumulated a lot of power, there was a backlog of decisions and allegations of corruption. The PA had become a Nationalist Party club.

Resistance from certain lobbyists was evident, with developers and environmentalists fighting one another. It was clear that these two authorities were heading for a clash.

Dr Vella said that when he became the minister responsible for the authority in 1996, he had wanted to make radical changes. He had found enormous resistance from persons who were comfortable, or who were the favoured ones, and from certain Nationalists. He had also found resistance from the Nationalist opposition in Parliament, even when proposing minor changes. The situation had changed during the last few years with gross government interference.

As a minister he had even been resisted by lobbyists on the Hilton project. These had gone on a hunger strike and allegations had been made against him and against the Labour government. Today everyone was proud of this project.

He had believed that things could move forward if architects were made to become responsible professionals. For this reason his ministry had issued a policy manual.

After all these years one could see that, to operate effectively, technical officials could not also handle administrative work. He had tried to engage two directors, but one had resigned within 24 hours because of resistance from certain quarters.

At the time the country did not even have an environmental dateline. He had started the EIAs and had set off the idea of a general development order where minor structural changes were proposed.

The Labour government had been criticised for setting up the users' committee, only for it to be proposed in this Bill. It had also established the 13-week period within which officers had to pronounce themselves on permits where the application was in order.

Dr Vella mentioned the case of a developer who had wanted to withdraw his investment in building a hotel in Malta because of procrastination from Mepa.

He claimed that Mepa was riddled with small gods and cliques. These had gone on strike when his ministry had taken steps against those responsible for letting the Sliema Car Park open before every Mepa procedure was in order.

It was the Labour government which had ordered that compliance certificates would not be issued if regulations were not observed. There was an incident where a case officer had been threatened and manhandled because he had told the developer that the regulations had not been observed.

The Labour government had encountered strong opposition because there were vested interests. There were architects who boasted they would leave Mepa as millionaires.

The crux of the problem was not the Bill but the people managing the legislation. The country needed competent professionals of integrity and who were not politicians. As an example he mentioned former Mepa chairman Alfred Fabri.

Mepa had lost its credibility because permits were issued to people who had the right connections.

Mepa had been politically manipulated, with Nationalist ministers referring people to certain officials. There was the idea that certain people decided according to political whims.

Dr Vella mentioned the opposition to the issuing of permits to the Sant'Antnin recycling plant. Mepa had collaborated with the government, offering four venues when it knew that the project could only be accommodated in one.

Mepa had failed to act as an independent regulatory authority. It had closed one eye to the EIA, with no survey being carried out on the impact that the plant would have on nearby residents' health. Mepa had also turned a blind eye on those who built outside the development zones. The Mepa chairman was so arrogant as to threaten the mayor of Marsascala with getting the police to evict him from the public hearing on the Sant'Antnin case.

Dr Vella said it was a shame for Mepa to issue the permit to demolish the historical Villa de Fremaux in Żejtun to build a block of apartments. Mepa and the government had tried to ridicule the Mepa auditor.

He mentioned the issue of the black dust in the south of Malta and said it was unbelievable that no expert at Mepa was capable of verifying what this dust was made of and where it came from. This was another proof that Mepa had lost the people's respect.

Mepa had consistently turned a blind eye to the implications of major projects on the lives of people. One could almost swear no official representative had even gone on site to see what the projects were all about.

The people had long been led to expect radical changes at Mepa. There was a more complicated structure, and the minister would have a finger in every pie on appointments, including users' committee members. How could one seriously restructure with blue-eyed boys hand-picked by the government with all imaginable perks? Their employment history showed why they were being appointed.

People with known Labour sentiments were held as being good for nothing.

What was the reform all about, especially in mission and objectives? There were no safeguards against bad development.

The dangers inherent in badly-planned development had recently become clear in the mishap at an Mqabba quarry very close to a school.

Concluding, Dr Vella said there should be serious parliamentary scrutiny not only on Mepa's operations but also on the conduct of the people appointed to it. Mepa was a very sensitive proposal which could make or break the country's economy. Yet there was no indication of how abuses would be tackled. The only way to do things well was to have carefully-picked people that would be held accountable.

At the beginning of the session, the House unanimously approved the first reading of the Retirement Pension Bill and the Various Financial Services (Amendment) Bill, moved by Finance Minister Tonio Fenech.