Labour MP Marie Louise Coleiro Preca has told Parliament that the Mepa reform Bill would legalise political interference with the Prime Minister retaining all authority to appoint Mepa Board members. Moreover, the Bill did not address the issue of conflict of interest, a discretion that could be easily eliminated if the government accepted the opposition's proposal to set up a parliamentary scrutinising committee.

Under successive Nationalist governments there was excessive political interference, she said.

The Bill introduced a framework and made references to plans and policies without presenting them to Parliament. A case in point was the issue of the black dust particles emanating during the past 10 years in the Fgura area with the government failing to identify its source when respiratory diseases in the same area were among the highest in the world. This was a case of crass incompetence.

How could the opposition agree to this framework void of plans and policies?

Although Mepa had the duty to safeguard the environment, the government did not have a national policy on housing units and Mepa continued to issue building permits when there was a large stock of vacant buildings.

The backlog of some 4,000 applications in 2008 remained the same as in 2006. The government did not say how this backlog would be eliminated with the setting up of two boards with full time members.

Dr Coleiro Preca asked whether the reform would make good for the damage caused through the local plans, like the time when Mepa changed semi-industrial areas into fully industrialised ones without any consultation to the fact that this change affected property prices.

Other adjacent areas were declared mixed-use areas. There were warehouses storing bowsers full of fuel adjacent to residential buildings. There was also a workshop engaged in fibre work adjacent to a workshop engaged in food production.

She asked for assurances from the government that the cultural heritage and the auditor's functions would be safeguarded.

Dr Coleiro Preca concluded by calling on the government to take heed of the proposals moved by the opposition.

Stefan Buontempo (PL) called for better coordination with local councils as this was the only way one would ensure sustainable development and a better quality of life for residents.

The quality of the environment had been declining in the past years. Among the main issues to tackle were noise and dust pollution, water harvesting, transport systems and the quality of urban roads.

Dr Buontempo said there was a need to look at development initiatives in government and private sectors in a more holistic way. What was needed was that the cross party voice of local councils was heard by the House as they had not been consulted enough. This, despite the fact that the Act provided that local councils were to be consulted on all decisions made by authorities that affect them.

Consultations with local councils was lacking in the case of the Siggiewi quarry, the Nadur cemetery, the Freeport extension and the Kappara junction. Dr Buontempo said there was the need of more effective coordination with the local and regional governments. Local plans should be at the core of national ones. Local councils were only being considered clients. The councils had become a pressure group but the government had weakened them.

Dr Buontempo augured that the 'Environmental operation permit' would be strictly adhered to in the case of the Freeport development. This guide controlled noise, chemicals and working hours. Action needed also to be taken on the black dust issue as a matter of urgency; the EU environmental commission was taking steps against Malta as it breached the air quality directive.

José Herrera (PL) said Malta was the country with the greatest density of development with some 26 per cent of the land area developed. Environmental policies were, therefore, a priority.

It was only in recent decades that the Maltese had started to give the environment its deserved importance. Before that, so-called development had been responsible for grave damage to the country's natural assets.

The influx of foreigners and returned migrants made it imperative that changes be made to the infrastructure. Parliament must legislate to save what could still be saved.

Dr Herrera said the opposition would be voting against the Bill, not just to be confrontational but because it considered certain parts of it far from ideal.

Mepa's €22 million subvention was being stopped so that it could become self-sustaining. It was intended that the number of the authority's staff would be removed, thereby reducing costs. But did the Budget include the increased costs of departments where the removed personnel would be deployed?

Any increase of costs anywhere would simply be borne by the consumer. This was one of the opposition's major reservations.

Mepa would now have two boards instead of one. The appeals board used to be chaired by a member of the legal profession, but now it would be chaired by an architect. Most appeals concerned points of law, so it would have been better that the board be chaired by a lawyer.

Dr Herrera said the opposition had repeatedly criticised the government's assumed powers of delegation. The Bill needed extensive beefing up. There should be a code of ethics, but there was no indication of its portent.

Interjecting, Dr de Marco said the current legal notices would stand until they were superseded. They would be used only with caution.

Continuing, Dr Herrera said he was sure of this, but lawyers had been taught that a delegating law usually meant usurpation of powers.

The opposition was also preoccupied that if the administrative and bureaucratic costs were increased, it would only be the consumer to foot the additional costs.

There had been controversies over certain decisions taken by Mepa, to the point where they were inexplicable.

The executive committee would be composed of board members and members or representatives of whoever would have recommended actions to be taken. But there would be no recommendations from the applicant. Why should this be so? Dr Herrera said he had reservations about the transparency of such a system.

The system of outline development permits, at least until an application was finally decided, was being discontinued. It had been a good system, and its removal was probably wrong.

Parts of the Bill were good. The full-time status of Mepa board members was one of them. It would at least discontinue the system of a person being a judge at one point and an applicant at another.

Another good point was the removal of certain formalities that could only prolong a case, as was the proposed reduction in the number of board members. But how would board members be appointed? There was a strong suspicion of nepotism and clientelism.

The board should also include environmentalists. Because Mepa was a very sensitive organisation that had repeatedly given rise to debate in the country, it was hoped that the person entrusted with taking final decisions would be above suspicion.

Concluding, Dr Herrera said policies still to be drafted should be in syntony with national needs. Mepa would be accountable to the elected government, not directly to the people, because it must not stultify government policies.

Justine Caruana (PL) said many people did not understand the Eco-Gozo project and the government had the duty to explain and to implement the project's aim. Few measures had been taken on this project. There was an inconsistency in the replies of government members with regard to green jobs in Gozo. Many people believed that Mepa was mistreating them and believed that the government was not considering their opinions. She mentioned examples in Qala and Ramla l-Ħamra Bay to prove how permits granted before the election were subsequently re-fused and then granted again.

Dr Caruana said Xewkija was not the ideal place to house the Water-Transfer Station. Moreover, toxic waste was being deposited in it.

While there should be an air link to Gozo, the environmental, social and economic impact of an airstrip should first be considered.

Concluding, Dr Caruana augured that Mepa and people who worked within it should be truly motivated and understand that nobody was above the law.

Owen Bonnici (PL) said that the PM had given a different impression when assuming Mepa under his responsibility. In reality, Minister Pullicino had already informed the PM that he did not desire to be responsible for Mepa. During the 10 years under the responsibility of Minister Pullicino, there were whiffs of corruption in Mepa.

On the Marsascala fish farms, Mepa had argued that the local council's objection was invalid as it was related to a sea development. But Mr Justice Ray Pace, sitting in the Court of Appeal overturned this decision.

He said that there was a lack of trust in Mepa. While a lawsuit dealing with Lm6,000 had to be instituted before a magistrate, who enjoyed security of tenure, a development that far exceeded this amount, had to be heard before a Mepa board that was made up of part-timers who could be fired at the minister's whim.

Dr Bonnici said there should be a parliamentary committee, with the same powers as the House Public Accounts Committee, that would be able to hold those who awarded permits accountable.

Since Mepa was responsible for planning and environment, the environmental aspect was given a secondary importance.

Dr Bonnici said that there were many people who believed that the environment should be given priority. Many had voted in favour of EU membership since they believed that the government was unable to take the necessary measures in favour of the environment and the EU would reign it in.

Helena Dalli (PL) said that the Prime Minister and government MPs did not understand each other and Dr Gonzi had to resort to foreign help through taxpayers' money to appoint a number of parliamentary assistants. This would increase the government hierarchy.

This showed that the PN wanted to hold on to political power at all costs. Mepa was electorally the undoing with young voters. However, just weeks before the elections it became their doing through the power of incumbency.

Before the elections, the Prime Minister tried to gain the voters' trust by declaring that if elected he would tackle Mepa himself. This showed that things were not being done correctly and that he would not trust Minister Pullicino with Mepa in the new legislature.

Minister Pullicino should have told Parliament on why Mepa offices were still operating in the early hours of the morning daily for five whole weeks before the 2008 election when decisions were supposed to have been frozen. The power of incumbency was at its highest.

The e-mail sent by PN Secretary General Paul Borg Olivier after the election showed that the government had to work from the first day in serving their party supporters and not leaving this to the last few weeks before the election.

The Prime Minister never answered her parliamentary questions regarding qualifications of employees at his office who were working in the interest of the Nationalist Party and not of the country.

Dr Dalli said that the Planning Authority had been established because of allegations by the Nationalist Party of corruption under the Labour government.

The reform presented today was also the result of alleged corruption and injustices by Mepa, with the authority being weak with the strong and strong with weak.

The government should have achieved more efficiency with the planning authority when compared to the government departments which used to process applications under Labour. But it had become a labyrinth to ordinary applicants lacking political patronage.

Mepa had also neglected and ignored the Structure Plan. This resulted in environment scandals. Things were worse off than before because opposition and independent critics were denied the opportunity to criticise the Minister because Mepa was an officially independent authority.

The authority served to build party alliances which were so strong that the 1996 labour government found it very difficult to move forward in this respect.