The weeks following the election held in March were weeks in which the Nationalist government embarked upon a wide-ranging plan of reforms that covered various sectors.
These areas had remained virtually untouched in the two, three years preceding the election, for fear that they could push people into voting against the Nationalist Party. Now that we are still in the first year of the new term, the government can “afford” to take what can be interpreted as being unpopular or difficult decisions because it will still have the time to recuperate any lost ground.
Various ministries have been entrusted with planning reforms that could pave the way for a better system. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi is deeply involved in the changes that are to be implemented at the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, while parliamentary secretary Chris Said has been entrusted with the reform of the local councils.
Transport Minister Austin Gatt is responsible for the reform in the public transport, while Social Policy Minister John Dalli is taking care of the rent reform. Finance Minister Tonio Fenech was behind the privatisation of the shipyards while, more recently, Education Minister Dolores Cristina is pushing ahead with changes in the transition from primary to secondary schools.
Dr Gonzi gave a very detailed outline of the reform that will be taking place within Mepa when he spoke during a business breakfast last week, highlighting the four columns on which the changes will be built – consistency, transparency, efficiency and enforcement.
Consistency, he said, is the most important of the four, but the other three aspects also form the basis of Mepa’s credibility.
Very often, the authority has been accused of being weak with the strong and strong with the weak. The reform should address this perception – true or false as it may be – as otherwise we will be back to square one. Unless the people will realise that Mepa is deciding each case on its own individual merits, with the uniformity that such an exercise entails, and with enough speed and efficiency, then any reform would be useless.
Dr Gonzi gave other examples of changes that need to be achieved in the workings of Mepa. For example, he mentioned that at present no explanation is given why applications are accepted by Mepa boards after they would have been refused by case officers. Such a motivation is necessary for decisions to be fully understood by the people, as otherwise there could be doubts as to what pushed the board to decide against the suggestions by case officers.
One “radical” change that Dr Gonzi seemed to insist upon was the way Mepa tackles illegal buildings. As things stand now, it takes quite some time and a lot of bureaucracy before Mepa is empowered to take action by pulling down the said buildings. Dr Gonzi hinted that the changes envisaged will give Mepa the chance to immediately demolish any illegal structures, although the owners will then have the right to seek legal remedy in court.
This will change the way Mepa can operate, because right now it is hampered by lengthy procedures that have at times allowed people to live in illegal buildings for a number of months, if not years, before they could be demolished.
Of all the reforms that the government has announced, the one concerning Mepa seems to be the slowest. It could be that it is also the most complicated of the lot, and that the government wants to come up with a comprehensive upheaval without leaving any loopholes. But on the other hand it must also be said that the public expected a quicker development on this matter.