Nationalist MP Frederick Azzopardi yesterday said that the bill the House was discussing addressed a number of issues which affected both the government and property owners, such as cases when the owner was not offered a fair sum, and the fact that a magistrate was no longer bound by the unanimity of the two architects, if something was deemed unfair.
Mr Azzopardi said he was glad both sides agreed on this bill, as it showed that transparency and accountability were unanimous values.
Nationalist MP Francis Zammit Dimech said this bill aimed to create a mechanism which preserved the cultural identity, while safeguarding the persons affected by expropriation.
He added that Malta wanted to attract tourists interested not just in sun and sand, but in the cultural heritage Malta had to offer. Malta’s cultural heritage was extremely rich, but it had to be looked after better.
He said that when a private owner kept a building in good condition and opened it to the public, it would not be expropriated. The aim was not to take over buildings, but to facilitate public access to history. Casa Rocca Piccola was an example of private property which had been lovingly safeguarded and opened to the public.
Labour MP Carmelo Abela said it was worth noting that historical buildings in the possession of the private sector had been taken good care of, and in such cases the government should not intervene.
When asked, Dr Azzopardi stated that once a historical building; the status would not be changed once land was expropriated, and it could not be passed on to someone else for another aim. He added that the persons who could request the scheduling of property should not be widened too much.
The Maltese had devalued their own cultural heritage, Dr Abela said, through not appreciating it enough. He commended features such as those by The Times of Malta, which drew attention to the state of forts around Malta.
Labour MP Roderick Galdes said in some cases even the government did not recognise the historical importance of some buildings.
The ongoing process of scheduling buildings was still in its initial stages, and in some cases lagged far behind. A number of buildings, including churches, had been damaged as they had no form of protection.
This bill was premature, he said, in that a number of abandoned historical sites within the Lands Department had no protective measures. It was well and good to debate controversial projects costing millions, while sites like the forts were falling apart before our very eyes.
Nationalist MP Joseph Falzon said this mechanism assured that a fair price was given.
The idea was not to make all historical property government property, but rather to encourage owners to safeguard their property of historical value. This was the first government to do this, he said.
The abundance of priceless buildings of archaeological and architectonic heritage had somehow decreased the appreciation of the Maltese, as they did not always appreciate their worth. Action had to be taken to safeguard what was left, he said.
Labour MP Evarist Bartolo said some 15 years ago Balluta square, in Sliema, had been designated, yet now the St Julians Mayor had applied for the construction of a Green Urban Transport Terminal on the same spot.
Putting the word green into the equation did not make it anymore acceptable, he said, as this would be ruining one of the most attractive squares in Malta.
Mr Bartolo said that as things currently stood, matters were fragmented between MEPA and the Superintendence; therefore it made sense for these to join forces. The problem lay within the Superintendence, he said, and it was futile to debate the matter if this was not arranged. He emphasised that there had to be new and efficient management.