Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco has called on Mepa employees to use the tools and resources given them by Parliament to regain people's trust and credibility by showing the authority was consistent, efficient and accountable and treated everybody in the same manner as far as enforcement was concerned. The success of Mepa reform rested with the people managing the authority, he said.

Dr de Marco was winding up the debate in second reading, after nine full sittings, of the Environment and Development Planning Bill, which seeks to harmonise the legislative framework regulating the protection of the environment and development planning. It aims to ensure sustainable development.

He said the debate had shown that both sides agreed there was a need for Mepa to be reformed, and that the environment had to be given more importance in planning decisions.

He would have liked the debate to delve more into the Bill itself.

During the debate, the opposition speakers had made various charges. Some were justified and others were not - like the extension of outside development zones, with the European Commission deciding there was no need for a Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA).

He tabled statistics which showed that approved ODZ applications in 2009 were the lowest in the past 10 years.

The opposition had also pointed out that the Development Control Commissions were not consistent and had also rejected the planning officers' recommendations.

Dr de Marco said the government had acknowledged that many of the stakeholders, foremost the applicants, were not happy with the tide of events and therefore there was the need to reform Mepa based on consistency, efficiency, accountability and enforcement.

Referring to the opposition's proposals on the Mepa reform, he said that even during the 22-month Labour government between 1996 and 1998, the then minister responsible for Mepa had tried to introduce timeframes for the decision of applications. The major stumbling block was the so-called "chest block", and the Bill now provided that a simple application had to be decided within 12 weeks, a complex one in 26 weeks and one for a major project within a 52-week period.

The Bill contained many measures, including heavier fines, which when enforced would act as strong deterrents.

Did the opposition agree to the appointment of full-time members on Mepa boards? Was it in favour of an overhaul of policies because many were obsolete or inconsistent?

Dr de Marco said he would have liked more proposals from the opposition on making Mepa more efficient, more accountable and stronger in enforcement.

The opposition came in for heavy criticism for failing to give detailed explanations of what it understood by spatial planning, because there did not seem to be much difference from a revised structured plan. What was needed was direction on the country's needs in terms of the economy, transport and social needs, among others.

Interjecting, Leo Brincat (PL) explained that in other countries the structure plan had been abandoned because it was an archaic concept. The opposition was ready to present amendments on spatial planning if the government agreed on the principle.

Continuing, Dr de Marco agreed that the structure plan needed revision in the direction of spatial planning, but said this did not form part of the present reform. He said there were no great contrasts between the two sides on the matter.

He reiterated that the existing parliamentary committee could have its remit extended to deal also with planning policies and not just the structure plan. Accountability could be gained not only through a committee modelled on the Public Accounts Committee but also through other measures. The Mepa auditor would now be working independently of Mepa and would be a Planning Commissioner within the Office of the Ombudsman.

Intervening again, Mr Brincat explained that the opposition wanted this committee built on the PAC model so as to scrutinise correct implementation of policies and ensure that Mepa members were acting with integrity and competence. This included the declaration of assets.

Dr de Marco answered that Mepa employees had to declare their assets. The Bill introduced measures for the removal of Mepa members for misconduct. There was no need of two separate authorities for planning and the environment.

A decision had been taken to employ 45 other employees in the environment section to make it more effective and increase cooperation with the planning entity.

The environment entity was responsible for 200 EU directives which imposed about 2,000 obligations on the country. More human resources would also be given to the planning and enforcement units.

Illegal structures would no longer be sanctioned.

NGOs would now be represented on the Planning Review Tribunal. Other amendments included the right of every person or entity interested in the process to make its representation from the outset. He agreed with the codification of policies, which should be accessible to anyone. A guide was also needed to interpret policies correctly. Mepa needed to be more consistent in applying these policies.

Dr de Marco said that for the first time Mepa members would now have legal obligations. He was convinced that most Mepa employees had the authority at heart and would contribute to its success. Architects would have to shoulder their responsibilities. The NGOs would have to be more professional in exercising their watchdog role. He appealed to the opposition also to continue with its contribution to strengthen and build on the success that Mepa had achieved.

The Bill was approved after a division by 35 votes for and 34 against.