According to recent newspaper reports, the planning authority is in the final stages of putting together an amnesty to sanction long-standing illegal developments.

While details of the scheme are yet to emerge, it appears that the illegalities to be considered for approval will not be limited to infringements within development zones that took place before 2013 but will include illegalities in ODZ areas carried out before 1994.

The scheme, if approved, will eliminate a large portion of Mepa’s unsustainable backlog of pending enforcement cases, which are said to number about 10,000, while raking in more than €20 million for Malta’s coffers.

At face value, this is a win-win-win situation, where no one loses out. The government raises millions from fines, the planning authority wipes out in one stroke its backlog of enforcement cases and planning abusers obtain the much-desired planning permit which allows them not only to carry out modifications to their properties but also, if they so desire, to sell them on the market.

Unfortunately, the situation is far from being so neat and simple.

Let us start from the fact that legislation always exercises some sort of pedagogical or teaching influence on society. Law, often unconsciously and over time, invariably exerts a shaping effect over the beliefs, character, identity, values and actions of a nation’s citizens, whether for good or for evil. Now, the same logic applies to government ‘schemes’, such as the proposed amnesty, which may not have the character of law but which are never value-neutral.

In the first place, one can argue that it is extremely dangerous to waive laws, because laws invoked only some of the time or which are the subject of periodic amnesties are soon respected none of the time. In the last few years, we have witnessed successive administrations granting amnesties on a regular basis to tax-evaders, people who have claimed more than their fair share of social benefits, those who were guilty of electricity theft, etc.

By allowing illegalities to become legal, the message which is coming across is that certain laws can be broken with relative impunity. One has only to pay the right price and the illegal becomes legal. But compliance with the law should not be for sale. No price tag should be set on illegality.

No price tag should be set on illegality

Secondly, through this scheme, the much maligned Mepa, which, rightly or wrongly, already does not enjoy the best of reputations among Maltese citizens, is admitting that it cannot enforce building regulations, a task which coincidentally is one of the main reasons which justify its very existence. But instead of strengthening this dimension of its mission by providing it with more enforcement officers and resources, by proposing this scheme, the authorities are raising their hands in defeat.

Unfortunately, successive administrations have allowed infringement cases to accumulate and as a result, the backlog is truly unsustainable. Among these pending enforcement cases, there may well be “genuine” cases involving minor irregularities. But, instead of tackling the root causes of the problem, opening up the possibility of regularisation to massive illegalities, including those committed in an ODZ, does nothing to enhance the reputation and moral authority of Mepa, on which, whether we like it or not, so much of the protection of our environmental heritage depends.

So let us be honest with ourselves and admit that, yes, if this amnesty scheme goes through, there will be losers. Law-abiding citizens and those who, notwithstanding everything, have always done their best to play by the rule-book, will once again feel cheated.

At the end of the day, it is society as a whole which will end up on the losing end. It is appropriate to call to mind the gist of the homily delivered by the then Archbishop during the Pontifical Mass celebrating Malta’s Independence in 2013. On that occasion Mgr. Paul Cremona asked the congregation: “What efforts are being made to strengthen the moral fibre, the social values of the country, justice, honesty and solidarity? […]

“When the people’s moral fibre is weakened or missing, society incurs a great loss, including a financial one. The absence of morality opens up the path to theft, fraud, tax evasion and injustice, which is all to the detriment of the people.”

If the consequence of the building amnesty being proposed is a moral amnesia of our country, then maybe our leaders should think twice before enacting it.

The advantages in the short term, including the financial windfall which would result from the scheme, would be severely outweighed by the damage being done to our moral fibre by the gradual acceptance of the logic underpinning such schemes as something “normal”.

If moral amnesia and the weakening of society is the price to pay for such amnesties to be ‘successful’, then I for one, think that the price to pay is definitely too high.

Fr Mark Cachia is director of the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice.