'Democratic deficit in Planning Appeals Board members'

Opposition spokesman on planning and housing Roderick Galdes maintained in Parliament yesterday that there was a strong democratic deficit with former Nationalist candidates sitting on the Planning Appeals Board.

He was speaking during the debate in committee on clause 40 of the Environment and Development Planning Bill. The clause establishes the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, which would replace the current Planning Appeals Board.

Mr Galdes requested information on the selection process for members on this board.

Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco said that this board was not appointed by the government but by the President of Malta. The existing Appeals Board would be deciding cases which had been deferred for review and were at an advanced stage.

Mr Galdes said that the members of the board were being selected by the Office of the Prime Minister. The President of Malta would only appoint them on the advice of the minister.

Saying that the selected members on the board were all political appointees, the opposition's spokesman on the environment Leo Brincat proposed a parliamentary scrutiny committee in the interests of good governance to examine closely and carefully the operational aspects without interfering in Mepa affairs. This committee would only be able to make recommendations.

Mr Galdes asked how many appeals boards were to be set up: one or two as at present.

Mr Ċensu Galea (PN) said he did not understand what the opposition meant by the scrutiny committee when there was the appeals board.

Mr Joseph Falzon (PN) said that the opposition had taken a contrasting position.

It was here that Mr Galdes said that there was a strong democratic deficit, with former Nationalist candidates sitting on the Planning Appeals Board.

The opposition wanted Parliament to scrutinise the process so that the government would have to explain on the selection process. He said that everyone knew that he was the only member on the Mepa board who opposed government policy. Everybody knew where the other members' loyalty was. Boards were appointed by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary independently of Mepa.

Mr Brincat said that if the government had any means which could further strengthen what the opposition requested, it was ready to consider. Did the government agree in principle on such a structure within the Public Accounts Committee? If it agreed, details could then be discussed. He doubted that the government had the courage to make this leap forward.

Dr de Marco said that there could be more than one Appeals Board, but at present one would be full-time. The boards had not been appointed and the selection process was still under way after the public call for such boards made by the government. He said the opposition's proposal to have two chairpersons and two members on the review tribunal was not practical. Mr Brincat amended his proposal in the sense that the members would be three instead of two.

Mr Galea said that he did not understand whether the committee proposed by the opposition was for this tribunal or for a sub-committee within the PAC.

Earlier, the committee approved the setting up of the Heritage Advisory Committee which advised Mepa on applications involving heritage issues.

Both Mr Brincat and Mr Galdes insisted that everything had to be done in order to avoid duplication of work.

Mr Galdes said that the opposition preferred that the Heritage Advisory Committee be established under the Cultural Heritage Act with the Heritage Planning Unit forming part of it. This committee would advise the Superintendent for Cultural Heritage, who would also have heritage staff as forming part of this regulatory body.

Dr de Marco said this did not necessarily mean that the superintendent would take the committee's advice.

He said the committee chaired by Prof. Albert Ganado gave advice to Mepa. There was no conflict in having a superintendent and a heritage consultative committee for Mepa. The committee included the cultural and natural heritage panels which had their own expertise.

Mr Galdes insisted that he could not trust the Superintendent for Cultural Heritage because of the way he had handled the Kalkara naval depot issue. Mepa had drawn the superintendent's attention that he seemed to be taking the side of the developer (the Ministry of Resources). The House also approved the clause that established the Environment and Other Funds.

Clause 39 established the role of mediator between the applicant and Mepa for permission or licence by the Authority. Parliamentary Secretary de Marco said that this mechanism had not been functional.

Mr Brincat said that the Head of Customer Care within Mepa had mediated for many applicants before the general elections. This demonstrated the power of incumbency.

Dr Sant remarked that the Bill did not give any protection to the weak as Mepa consumers. One had to think of this mechanism as practically giving assistance to the average citizen.

Dr de Marco said that applicants had every right to be represented, and that a simple application had to be fast-tracked and there were appeal mechanisms.

Clause 39 as amended was agreed to.

The debate continues.