Parliament will tomorrow evening vote on a number of Opposition amendments to the Government Lands Bill, having discussed it in committee stage in two plenary sessions held yesterday and this morning.
Opposition lands spokesman Ryan Callus was unwavering in his arguments against proposed clauses granting powers of eviction to the chairperson of the newly-formed Lands Authority, the powers the new law granted the relevant minister and the publishing of adverts announcing the acquisition of land for public purposes.
Mr Callus argued that the government could not give itself the right to evict private title-holders with the stroke of a pen. He also argued against the restriction of the period within which the compensation given for expropriation could be appealed to five years, maintaining that this would place those unaware of this expropriation at a disadvantage.
READ: Proposed lands bill is unconstitutional, says PN's Azzopardi
Insisting that the Bill gave citizens more recourse to the justice system, Planning parliamentary secretary Deborah Schembri argued that a statute of limitations for appeals was necessary to give the government legal certainty over its assets, and that it would not make sense for the law to allow the government to expropriate private land for reasons of public purpose, but not to terminate leases and emphyteuses.
Other amendments not accepted by the government, and for which a division will also be taken, were the Opposition’s proposals to require various notifications to be published in two newspapers on three consecutive days and on Sunday, instead of only once.
However, the Opposition did not challenge the government’s objection to the removal of a 14-day minimum notice period following eviction, accepting Dr Schembri’s arguments that this notice period has been superseded by the 50-day right of appeal.
With regards to the composition of the Arbitration Board, Mr Callus pointed out that Dr Schembri did not change the current law in order to make independent appointments to this Board.
In similar instances, appointments are generally made by the President on the recommendation of the Justice Minister, but Mr Callus argued that, against precedent, the President should be kept out of such matters, as her role was purely a formality. Instead, nominees should be appointed from a list of experts by the Chief Justice.
However, Dr Schembri argued that this would amount to the judiciary appointing itself, due to the judicial role appointees to the Arbitration Board carried, in violation of the principle of the separation of powers.
Mr Callus also introduced a new clause, saying that any profit made by the Land Authority should be placed in a special fund dedicated for pending expropriation payments.
Dr Schembri said the Lands Authority had its own bank account and that talks with Finance Ministry regarding the apportionment of its profits were currently underway.
The House will meet again this evening.