A clause in a Bill covering the appointment of members of the future planning authority’s executive council prompted fears last night that too much power would be concentrated in the hands of the minister.

Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi

In a parliamentary debate in committee on the Development Planning Bill characterised by yet another instance of Marlene Farrugia (Ind.) voting with the Opposition, Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon described the Executive Council as innovative.

The move would separate the policy arm, that is, the council, from the decision-taking bodies within the new authority, he said.

The Opposition objected strongly to the way the council would be composed, saying that with the minister exercising discretion over the appointment and removal of members, it would concentrate power at ministerial level. “The Executive Council will be the extended arm of the minister,” Marthese Portelli complained.

The Opposition referred to similar concerns raised by a number of NGOs and institutions in this regard. The government and Opposition agreed to debate the articles that provided for the establishment and scope of the Executive Council as well as the appointment of the Executive’s chairperson. The government proposed the inclusion of two independent members on the council, rather than persons “know­ledgeable in building services”.

Moreover, it proposed the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage should be called when the council is considering scheduling and conservation.

Dr Falzon said all development policies would be sent to Parliament’s Environment and Planning Committee.

The Opposition said this was a fundamental article in the Bill. The council was going to wield huge power, including deciding on development policies. Building expertise was required on the council, together with the members of the Malta Environment Authority.

Ryan Callus (PN) proposed that the council should include two members chosen by environ­mental NGOs and two others to be nominated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition respectively.

Moreover, persons sitting on the authority’s subsidiary boards should not sit on the Executive Council, as the Bill proposed. This was in line with the government’s statement in favour of separation of powers, said Mr Callus.

Dr Farrugia, agreeing with the Opposition’s stand, proposed an amendment on behalf of Alternattiva Demokratika for two permanent members to be appointed by the Malta Environment Authority.

Chris Said (PN) said that, while the government was speaking in favour of the separation of powers, it was at the same time proposing that the minister nominate all seven members on the council.

This was a retrograde step considering the government did not appoint all Mepa board members within the current structure.

The debate on this clause continues. Earlier, Dr Farrugia and the Opposition voted together on an amendment moved by the rebel MP at the opening stages of the debate on the Development Planning Bill.

The debate followed the conclusion of that on the Environment Protection Bill, and with the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal Bill, the three Bills form the legislative instruments leading to the demerger of Mepa into two separate authorities.

Article 4 of the Development Planning Bill stipulates that the principles listed in the previous article are not “directly enforceable in any court”, although they are fundamental to the Government of Malta and are to be used in the interpretation of all laws related to planning.

In fact, Article 3 outlines the duty of government to enhance the quality of life of present and future generations through a comprehensive, sustainable land use planning system. This includes the preservation and use of resources with full regard to environmental, social and economic needs as well as the development and operation of correct and sound policies.

Dr Farrugia proposed an amendment, after meeting several NGOs and Alternattiva Demokratika, to declare Article 3 “directly enforceable in court”. Dr Falzon said he appreciated Dr Farrugia’s concerns, however, Article 3 set out guiding principles similar to those included in the Constitution that were not enforceable. Removing the provisions of Article 4 would be “dangerous”, he said.

Dr Portelli and Mr Callus (PN) agreed with Dr Farrugia’s motion. They said it was an opportunity to confirm the country had learnt from past mistakes and wanted to do things in a better way.

The amendment was rejected, with Dr Farrugia voting in favour with the Opposition.

In a statement, AD chairman Arnold Cassola said that Dr Farrugia had presented “a number of amendments to the planning act on behalf of Alternattiva Demokratika”.