It is not my purpose here to dwell upon any particular case. Nor is it my intention to analyse in depth the technicalities of the workings of the planning authority. I do, however, intend to make my objective criticism as to the juridical structure of this primary government agency.

No doubt, this particular entity is of the utmost importance and is endowed with wide discretionary powers. The scope of having an autonomous authority to regulate planning and development in our country is positive, if not essential.

In days gone by, the powers vested in this agency were the realm of government ministers, which circumstance could and did lead to abuse to the detriment of sustainable development in our limited territory due to the political climate prevailing in Malta. The scope, therefore, of setting up an independent institution in order to do away with undue political interference made sense. In practice, however, matters did not evolve as originally planned and we have witnessed over the years undue incursions by persons of influence in the independence of this authority.

What I find difficult to define is the juridical and legal nature of Mepa. Some would refer to it as a quasi-judicial authority embracing within its organisation administrative tribunals that would supposedly determine independently development applications.

To my mind, this was the original idea. However, after having experienced the workings of this agency at first hand and having followed the on-going debate on this matter over the last years, unfortunately, I have come to a different conclusion.

The modus operandi of this agency is, in fact, more akin to that of a mere government department. In the processing of permits, Mepa does not follow the normal rules, which normal administrative tribunals are legally bound to follow.

The principles of natural justice are alien to its style of operation, especially when it comes to the cardinal factor of having a totally independent tribunal that would decide the issue before it without any indirect communication by the interested parties. This way of doing business has undoubtedly given way to abuse and undue influence.

For example, in the case of the ordinary courts, the law goes so far as to make it a criminal offence to commute with the presiding judge, if not during the hearing. From what we have been hearing, casual communicaires with the members of the adjudicating tribunals within Mepa have become the order of the day. It seems that this practice has become so blatant that no effort is even made to cover it up. This approach, to my mind, is totally unacceptable and undermines the very scope of having such an authority.

Another disquieting factor is the fact that the various members of the tribunals in question are part-timers and are not vested with the normal constitutional guarantees granted to other adjudicators. In this regard, for example, the architects involved are also free to carry on their private practice.

This, in many instances, has shown that it could lead a conflict of interest. This has even occasioned people involved in the construction industry to hire as their personal architects individuals employed by Mepa, logically seeing an advantage to be had through such practice. Imagine having the members of the judiciary doing private practice while at the same time presiding over the Bench. This would be totally unheard of and would lead to a hue and cry.

Similarly, as things have evolved over the years, it is no longer ethically correct to allow the members of Mepa to carry on with their private work because such practice is diminishing the trust that people have in this agency.

A few years back, at the end of the last legislature, the government proposed for the first time the setting up of true administrative tribunal, which, to a certain extent, would have general jurisdiction.

Though, as I stated in Parliament, I would have far preferred the introduction of an administrative court as is now prevalent in all European countries, this tribunal will go a long way in minimising the sorry state of affairs that exist in administrative law. This tribunal would have under its umbrella the jurisdiction and competence presently granted to about 140 minor administrative tribunals.

Thankfully, the adjudicating boards under Mepa will be absorbed by this permanent all-encompassing tribunal. This tribunal will be presided over by a member of the judiciary, will follow the normal court procedures and will definitely guarantee far more transparency.

A few days back, I tabled a parliamentary question asking the minister responsible when he intends to implement the said law and finally create the tribunal in question. In the meantime, I keep my fingers crossed that this will be soon.

Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament.