A Nationalist back-bencher has urged the government to offset taxes due by property owners who have had their property expropriated by the government against the compensation which they have still not been given.
Speaking during the debate in second reading of the Land Acquisitions (Public Purposes) Ordinance (Amendment) Bill, Charlò Bonnici said the Bill reopens the wounds of those whose property was expropriated and for which they had either not yet received any compensation or received a compensation which is not adequate.
Mr Bonnici said that no compensation has been as yet paid to a number of persons. Although last year €10 million were paid in compensation, there was still a balance of €70 million to be paid.
He noted that before 1987, there were many instances where public places, even of historical importance, had been given by the Labour government to the Labour Party.
Some of these properties were left to deteriorate to such an extent that various PN governments had to call upon those using them to repair them. He also said that public buildings had been given away for pittance and from which now the individuals who acquired these buildings could sell them off for huge sums of money.
Mr Bonnici said the Bill tangibly implemented the concept of protection of national memory and the development of historical and cultural identity. While noting the embarrassing state of Fort St Elmo and Fort St Angelo, he noted a number of restoration projects that have been undertaken by the government, including the embankment of the train line in Attard, various projects in Valletta, the aqueducts and the Mdina bastions.
Mr Bonnici said that widening of the scope of "public purpose" carried opportunities and risks. Yet the risk that a government could expropriate property is counter-balanced by the increase in rights provided for the individual in the Bill as well as through the provision of mechanisms that provide for adequate compensation.
Mdina residents were concerned as the Bill stated that property of historical or cultural value that was not accessible to the public might be expropriated. He suggested that a decision should not depend on whether the property was accessible to the public or not but ought to depend on whether the property was being maintained or left to deteriorate.
Stefan Buontempo (PL) noted the new concepts into the mechanism of expropriation and the protection of cultural heritage provided by the Bill. He said the mechanism established for the liquidation of compensation was a positive measure.
Mr Buontempo said the University and Mcast should further develop training for restoration, conservation and related trades. Government-held property also required restoration and he invited the government to compile an inventory of those buildings which are held by the central authority or by Joint Office so as to identify the maintenance work required.
He also questioned why the Bill was not preceded with an inventory of the property which was of historical or cultural value.
Mr Buontempo questioned the correctness of leaving the final decision of compensation to the magistrate presiding over the Land Arbitration Board, stating that he was against this since it was the architects who were professionally trained in establishing the value of a property.
The bill gave better measures to safeguard historical property. He asked whether the government was considering acquiring abandoned buildings in Valletta or whether it wanted to encourage owners to restore these buildings.
He lamented that bastions in the Cottonera area, particularly in Senglea and Cospicua, had structural damage. He called on the government to refrain from collecting VAT on restoration work in churches and praised the local councils' commitment in promoting cultural heritage.
Dr Marie Louise Coleiro Preca (PL) considered the Bill as one adopting a limited damaging ap-proach, because unplanned development over the years had caused havoc to the cultural heritage. The bill was not enough. One had to ensure that the necessary structures be in place to implement the law.
Mistakes had been committed in the past with the most recent one being the demolition of 75 per cent of the Armoury of the Knights in Qormi. The Superintendence of the Cultural Heritage, in 2005, had proposed the scheduling of the building and proposed that no development permit be issued. However, Mepa approved the development application in 2007. The building originally belonged to the Church but was passed on to the Joint Office and later given to third parties.
She hoped that restoration works be carried out according to set guidelines and called for co-ordination among government entities, naming in particular the Superintendence, Heritage Malta, the Mepa Scheduling Unit and local councils.
The government was also mistaken in granting pristine land in Kalkara to private developers causing damage to the Kalkara valley.
Dr Coleiro Preca claimed that damage to Fort St Angelo was also caused because of development in the area. After abandoning Fort St Elmo for 20 years, the government now wanted to consider restoration of the fort. In considering historical building marked for public use the government had to respect the privacy of private owners still living there.
She proposed the setting up of a scheme, using EU funds, to give assistance to owners living in buildings of historical and cultural significance to be able to restore these buildings.
Concluding, Dr Coleiro Preca called on government to pay compensation due to owners whose agricultural land had been expropriated years ago.
Philip Mifsud (PN) said the Bill was strengthening the balance between the rights of the government to expropriate land for public purpose and the rights of the private individual.
The government would bind itself that should it expropriate property for public purpose, it had to restore such property. However, should the individual want restore the property himself he could do so while he would still enjoy his property.
Mr Mifsud said that the availability of the valuation report to the concerned parties before the sentence was delivered was also strengthening the rights of the individual.
Winding up the debate, Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi said that both sides of the House had arrived at a consensus on the Bill with the government accepting suggestions by the opposition making the bill better and clearer.
The Committee of Guarantee presided by former President Ugo Mifsud Bonnici would decide whether a building was of historical significance in cases where such a building was not scheduled or listed as such.
Answering Charles Buhagiar (PL), Dr Azzopardi said that the scope of public purpose would be limited and what was not permitted today would remain illegal. Changes would increase transparency and accountability. Citizens were being given the right to contest expropriation for public use in the law courts.
Before 1994 land was expropriated without providing for the necessary compensation. The Bill now laid the guidelines on compensation for historical buildings.
The government did not intend to expropriate property in Imdina or elsewhere. However it did not want that privately-owned historical buildings fall in ruins as was the case of the Għajn Żnuber Tower where no one knew who the perpetual leaseholders were with the tower in danger of crumbling.
Dr Azzopardi said that compensation would not necessarily be in monetary terms. The architects in the Land Arbitration Board were the experts and no additional architects could be appointed by the contestants.
He announced that the government would soon issue an expression of interest on the best use of the Polverista in Floriana. He called on the Labour Party, as owner of Australia Hall in St Andrews, to restore the 1915 building which had been used by the Red Cross. The building was in a dilapidated state.
Concluding, Dr Azzopardi said that during the last 10 years the government paid €97 million in compensation for expropriated land. The government still owed €47 million to owners of expropriated property and the government would soon announce legislative measures on how it would pay these dues.
The House meets again next Monday.