An insidious and dangerous form of unwarranted political interference everywhere is when it is done to prevent or subvert the enforcement of laws or regulations. However much political parties promise clean and transparent policies, people generally take political interference in the workings of an administration and in authorities, companies or organisations that belong, or are controlled, by the State as a matter of fact. They are, therefore, rarely, if ever, shocked by claims of unwarranted or illegal interference.
This is not to say, however, that people have now become immune to the problem or that they do not express disgust and anger whenever gross cases of interference are revealed.
Few were surprised when a former Malta Environment and Planning Authority director said he used to experience “daily” political interference over enforcement decisions made against environmental abusers. This fitted exactly with people’s perception of what happens at the planning watchdog. Not only that, but, according to a Eurobarometer survey, the perception is that planning authority employees, particularly those who are directly involved in the granting of development permits, are the most corruptible public officials.
Fairly or unfairly, it will take more than a denial by a former minister, or by the government for that matter, to absolve the Malta Environment and Planning Authority of the slur.
Likewise, it will take a lot more than an official denial to do away with the perception that the present Labour government is willing to lend more than a sympathetic ear to developers.
No evidence has been produced to show that former environment minister George Pullicino had interfered in any law enforcement decisions but it would have been preferable had he also personally refrained from passing on to Mepa messages which he said he used to receive from people about their cases. Yes, it may have always been up to the enforcement unit to decide but the mere fact of a minister passing on a message to a regulator may well be construed as interference.
The former Mepa director who spoke of daily political interference worked there up to 2004, after which he took up a job at Polidano Brothers, contractors renowned for flouting enforcement notices. Depending on how one looks at the matter, this may or may not appear somewhat strange. Neither is it altogether strange that he did not spill the beans at the time he was employed at Mepa. A survey carried out in England some years ago found that many are inadequately equipped to combat political interference.
Does the fact that people have come to expect interference mean that this revolting state of affairs ought not to be stopped or, at least, curtailed as much as possible? Of course not, but is there the political will to stamp out interference in order to stop abuse, not just at Mepa but in other areas of public administration, such as the health service?
Environmental organisations are quite justified in expressing anger at the fact that some contractors not only continued to break the law but, at times, were having their way through sanctioning or talks with the government.
It is very strange too how enforcement files at the authority have been deleted from its server. Are there no adequate controls at Mepa to safeguard the servers? This is a serious matter that ought to be investigated thoroughly and a clear explanation given to the public.
It is only through strong anti-corruption measures, rather than pre-election promises, that abuse can be checked.