The Manoel Island issue has become a national one as residents choking in crowded, overbuilt cities stand up for one of the few remaining green lungs on the island. They’re just not buying into the declarations about areas for public use – mainly because commercialised space is not really the green and healthy space we all long for; and because hotels are not public spaces; and because swimming in the wake of water taxis is not safe or fun.

But there’s much more to the Manoel Island issue than the extent of the space that the public has a right to. There are also vitally important aspects of good governance, accountability and transparency that should be assessed.

In a nutshell, if a huge chunk of public land with high landscape and amenity value is going to be granted to a commercial outfit, then there’s got to be some oversight, some form of periodical assessment of the project to ensure that the terms of the contract are honoured in their entirety. If this isn’t done there is no way of knowing whether the land was simply signed away on a largely speculative profit.

The relevant contract makes interesting reading. So do the minutes of the parliamentary committees where the deal was discussed, way back in 1999. But they also raise many questions as to how the whole project is panning out and who is responsible for this. It is in the public interest to know the following:

What amount of the premium payable was paid on the signing of the deed? How much more has been paid to date? How much of the premium was set off by restoration works? Why was no duty on documents paid on the deed? Why was there an administrative abatement of the ground rent to be paid? Were all the necessary permits applied for within the 12-month time frame stipulated in the deed? If not, why?

There’s much more to the Manoel Island issue than the extent of the space that the public has a right to

Were the works necessary to prevent further deterioration of the sites listed in the contract completed within the two-year time limit? Why was the application to dredge the bay and build a breakwater withdrawn? Wasn’t the idea to use the excavated material from the Tigné phase of the project in the land reclamation pro­ject at Manoel Island? What became of that? Was there a supplementary agreement with government regarding that matter? Was that scrutinised by Parliament?

During the sessions of the select committee, the minister in charge stated emphatically that there were contractual conditions ensuring that the project would not be a permanent building site. The excavation and construction at the Tigné end have been going on for 17 years. Does that qualify as permanent? Does it concur with the time limits for the conclusion of the Tigné phase as set out in the contract? Where are the certificates for the completion of works? Which entity is checking? Aren’t there penalties imposed in the case of delay?

In the original re-use proposals submitted by Midi plc to Mepa, Fort Manoel was to accommodate a fort museum, a visitor centre, an exhibition gallery and an audio-visual centre. The emphasis was to be on traditional crafts or arts studios and workshops. The chapel crypt was to be an exhibition room with the chapel being reinstated as a religious building.

At what point did that idea get chucked out? Why wasn’t this intended use indicated from the start? Which authority or entity is ensuring that the contract is being adhered to, and that there are no breaches?

The public has a right to know what kind of oversight and scrutiny this – and similar contracts – are receiving. Otherwise you can’t stop people from reaching obvious conclusions about how public land is being disposed of.

drcbonello@gmail.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.