Mepa should take a stand on empty properties in order to safeguard the few open spaces left, Labour MP Carmelo Abela told Parliament on Tuesday.

A Mepa Housing Topic Paper had revealed that almost a quarter of the entire housing stock in the Maltese islands was vacant. Although a proportion of this vacant housing was used as a second home or summer residence, many promises were permanently unoccupied.

Speaking during the debate on the Environment and Development Planning Bill, Mr Abela said the government had spoken about sustainable development, but the Bill failed to say how this would be achieved, even if few people knew what this meant.

He said nobody could deny how, after the Mepa board heard people's concerns, it approved a project just few minutes later. The decision on the Sant'Antnin recycling plant was a case in point.

While some developers would do anything to have their projects approved, some saw their applications dismissed, even though the projects were similar to others. The Bill should have included more transparency and, where similar cases were differently concluded, there should be a clear reason for such a decision.

The Mepa auditor was appropriately critical, even though this irritated certain people and some even felt uncomfortable.

The Bill consisted of a re-foundation of the authority. Moreover, in a small country as Malta, one should be very careful with the use of land. Several mistakes were committed, such as development that was not correctly regulated.

Mr Abela said that the Nationalist government had made use of Mepa, which did not mind at all because it used different yardsticks with different governments. This should not be, both for the sake of citizens and for those who worked within the authority.

Why was the revision process in Mepa not continuous? The current situation meant that new policies had made inroads and badly affected previous policies.

Interjecting, Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco said there was a forward planning unit to review these policies. But over the years, policies tended to accumulate and Mepa had taken full cognisance of the situation.

Continuing, Mr Abela said that Dr de Marco himself had just highlighted the problem, because it meant that whenever a new policy was adopted the former one should be immediately rescinded. It showed that such an exercise in Mepa should be continuous.

Even Parliament sometimes found itself in the position of discovering that new laws affected previous ones.

Part of the remit of Mepa's internal auditor could do much to help the revision process. A checks-and-balances system was therefore imperative.

Mr Abela said the fact that the opposition was suggesting a PAC-style parliamentary committee showed its commitment to seeing things done better. The proposed committee would monitor and question complaints and policies. The government should seriously consider setting up such a committee.

This could scrutinise people who were being appointed to important Mepa posts and monitor their plans, making sure there would be no abuses. After all, two years ago the government had made an electoral promise to see that boards would be appointed differently. The proposed Mepa reform bore testimony to the government's failure to keep its promise.

The authority should also safeguard Malta's priceless historical heritage, which had repeatedly been badly damaged by Mepa decisions. This was a very heavy responsibility.

The parliamentary committee would also act as a watchdog on the extensive powers being given to the minister to appoint people of his own choice on Mepa boards. The practice should be installed of people in the highest echelons of Mepa publicly declaring their assets, as MPs had to do.

On the proposed parliamentary committee, Mr Abela asked why there should not be the practice of two members being able to move for certain topics to be discussed by the permanent committee.

Concluding, Mr Abela said people's experiences gave little hope of the government abusing Mepa less than hitherto. He had little faith because in this case, the past was indeed an indication of the future.

Noel Farrugia (PL) reiterated that Malta needed to implement an extensive educational programme to foster environment and planning protection. Future generations were to be made conscious of the importance of sustainable development.

An environment and planning reform should provide what was needed, and Mr Farrugia called on the minister, Mepa and the Malta Resources Authority to ensure protection of Malta's water table. He expected a reform that created a balanced position, where sustainable development was to address the whole reality including that of heritage.

He referred to legislation which made it compulsory for premises to include water wells, and criticised its lack of enforcement. The minister responsible for social housing was to see that social housing developments were to include rural and traditional characteristics and to incorporate those heritage elements that were being otherwise lost.

Mr Farrugia noted that although Malta had been a member of the EU for more than five years, it was not yet in conformity with the derogations on the underground water table levels.

He criticised Mepa experts for placing difficulties in the way of those wanting to reclaim land for agricultural purposes. He said this was being unjustifiably hampered and leading to a lack of rehabilitation of Malta's coastline.

Mr Farrugia invited the minister to keep abreast with the work of the EU and UN experts on the World Water Council, and to consider the difficulties that Dubai had found itself in after failing to adequately address its hydrology policy.