Chris Agius, Parliamentary Secretary for Planning and the Property Market
The government has stated its position quite clearly about the issue of the hiring of a private jet. On numerous occasions it has been blatant about its opinion, specifically pinpointing that it was not in agreement with the line of action taken by the Planning Authority on the matter.
The authority took its independent decision and rightly so faced theconsequences of the various criticisms that were made in response to such a decision. As after all happens in other cases related to various aspects of the authority.
And unfortunately among all this, it is very rare that the positive gains of this authority come to light. So this is a good opportunity to mention a few.
The authority currently administers a very positive initiative that has seen very good outcomes with respect to the response by the public. Irrestawra Darek is an endeavour in the spirit of the conservation and preservation of our architectural heritage, which aspires to beautify our built landscape while making sure that the government’s wealth is distributed to Maltese and Gozitan people via schemes.
In 2018, the Planning Authority invested more than €10 million in this scheme, ring-fencing portions for the elderly, persons with disability and NGOs.
Another positive initiative which directly affects the public is the Development Planning Fund, which has already allocated €7.5 million since its commencement in 2017. This fund is the result of obligatory contributions made by developers in an attempt to strike a balance between development and public facilities within any particular community. Projects resulting from the fund vary from public gardens to civic centres to public benches and security cameras, all in public spaces.
And in an attempt towards improved fairness, 2018 also saw the launch of the Planning Authority’s Sebbaħ il-Lokal, for which local councils with a DPF allocation of less than €100,000 were eligible.
This is not to mention the authority’s management of the first-time buyers and second-time buyers scheme, together with the reduced duty incentives on purchasing a home within an Urban Conservation Area or a home in Gozo, all of which are intended to help Maltese and Gozitan citizens become homeowners while also incentivising use of existing properties and investment in Gozo.
I would also like to point out the authority’s internal initiatives towards improvement and sustainability. These include large-scale projects such as the €7 million SintegraM which aims to improve the authority’s resources, as well as initiatives targeting the authority’s employees but keeping sustainability in mind, such as the Green Transport Initiative and a focus on employee well-being.
Finally, from being an authority with over €20 million in debt, the Planning Authority now has more than €10 million which are its own.
Dione Borg, Nationalist Party EU Parliament Election candidate
The Ombudsman report says it all. One need not say more. It is a damning report which clearly and strongly rebukes the way the whole situation was handled. The Ombudsman has highly criticised both the hiring of the private jet as well as the seemingly succumbing to pressure by the involved board members.
The Ombudsman went as far as to describe it as an extraordinary intervention which could easily be interpreted as an unwarranted influence on the said member of the board. In fact the Ombudsman insisted that “board members should be left at liberty and under no circumstances should they succumb to pressure to attend board meetings”.
It is a basic principle of good governance, good practice, transparency and fair hearing that every member of the Planning Authority board should be left in liberty to attend a meeting and to listen to the various representations and finally decide when all the representations have been duly made. Moreover, when it comes to decisions to be taken by the Planning Authority board, the executive chairman’s role should be limited solely to answering questions from board members and to clarify any policy or procedural issues that may arise. The executive chairman should not, in any way, be seen as having any part, whether directly or indirectly, in the Planning Authority board’s final decisions.
Such behaviour brings with it a number of inferences, inferences that are completely justified. Doubts arise as to whether the hearing and respective vote outcome was truly unbiased and was not in any way influenced by undue pressure.
Board members are seen to lack the necessary backbone required to stand for what is right in terms of good governance.
The idea of “fit-for-purpose” board members is questioned and whether they understand the responsibility they have been entrusted with. Board members should do their utmost to be present for all meetings and should not accept any insistence to attend or not attend a particular meeting.
Whether this behaviour poses a discriminatory and inequitable behaviour towards other applications is also put to task.
Taking into consideration all the above, it goes without saying that responsibility should be carried. But one should delve deeper and not stop at the executive chairman. Should one believe that the decision was taken unilaterally by the executive chairman? Or was pressure also being exerted on him by higher authorities? Let’s not forget that responsibility, accountability and good governance is non-existent for this government. And we have seen obscene malpractice and abuse of basic good governance principle under this current Labour administration.
It’s about time that the Ombudsman’s recommendations gain a status of enforceability and not simply a status of recommendation. A recommendation will simply be ignored by governments who have no intention of adhering to good governance practices.
Anthony Buttigieg, Democratic Party MEP Candidate
The question posed exposes two issues that are vitally wrong with this country.
Let us start with the first. This country is run on the principle of two weights and two measures. There are those with connections and who are protected by the inner sanctum of power; and then there are the rest of us.
A private jet was hired to bring back a board member, not to approve a washroom on a roof, or to add two stories to a private dwelling in a built-up area, that don’t warrant such attention.
It was hired to make absolutely sure a controversial high-rise development, despite thousands protesting against it, would be passed and be approved. The applicant was not Mr Borg who goes to work in the morning, pays his taxes and national insurance. The applicant was the DB group, that was given public land for a rock-bottom price to make hundreds of millions in profit, and by sheer coincidence is a major contributor to the two main political parties.
The second is the total lack of accountability and sense of impunity when someone has done wrong and is caught out. We have seen it when it comes to the Panama Papers’ revelations, we have seen it over the visas scandals in Libya and Algeria, we have seen it as regards 17 Black, the Gaffarena case, etc.
It was hired to make absolutely sure a controversial high-rise development would be passed and be approved
The list goes on and on. And when a message is sent from above, that message of yes, you can do what you like and get away with it so long as you have ‘friends’, then it is not surprising others further down the chain of authority begin to think and act the same way.
This is not a new phenomenon. It has been going on for decades, fuelled by our current system of rotating-door politics. It has now, however, reached unprecedented levels.
The capricious use of public funds to bring a member of the PA board home, while on holiday, when there were easily accessible commercial flights available, is symptomatic of the malaise in our society.
The total lack of responsibility when it comes to spending the hard-earned tax euros of all of us, the favouritism a small section of our society is enjoying, the weakening of the institutions that are meant to protect the public from abuse of power, even when those institutions make their voice of disapproval heard, they do not serve you and me, they serve people like the owners of the DB group and those who help them.
Will any action be taken over the Ombudsman’s findings? Don’t bet on it.
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece