When a case is being heard in a court of law, experts are sometimes appointed to prepare technical reports regarding various aspects relevant to that case. These are important in helping the court reach a decision, but the outcome of the case is not decided by the experts themselves but by the magistrate, judge or jury. It is how our justice system works and nobody would dream of changing it to allow “experts” to take the final decision.

This procedure came to mind when reading Astrid Vella’s article ‘The experts DID decide the St John’s project’ (TMIS, 15 February). The reasoning behind the article is worrying because it implies that the outcome of the application for the St John’s museum was decided by the experts rather than by Mepa. If this were true it would be a subversion of the legal process by which such applications are decided and would be the equivalent of the court experts taking over the job of the judiciary.

When considering a planning application of a certain magnitude, Mepa consults experts, holds public meetings, commissions EIAs, talks to stakeholders, invites objections from the public and does whatever is necessary to have a clear picture and take an informed decision. Ultimately, the decision has to lie with Mepa and no one else: not the experts, not the public and still less FAA. Just as one might disagree with a particular decision of the courts, one might also occasionally disagree with a Mepa decision. However, it remains the entity established by law with the express purpose of deciding on planning issues and the thesis that a lobby cartel – or “experts” – should take over this role is essentially subversive.

For the record, I had my own doubts regarding the risks associated with the project but wanted to see what the EIAs would have said before making up my mind as a layman. I was looking forward to following the debate within Mepa and in the various public hearings; it would have been the orderly and civilised way of doing things, irrespective of the final decision. All this has now been swept aside because Astrid Vella, in her bossy wisdom, insisted that there was no need for such procedures: her experts had decided.

The situation is even more frustrating because it is not even true that the experts had decided. The ones quoted by Ms Vella are mainly the members of Mepa’s Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee. These gentlemen are indeed experts in their fields but the CHAC, as an advisory body that is an integral and important phase of the planning process, makes recommendations to the Development Control Commission and the MEPA Board, which are the actual decision-making bodies. CHAC members would never presume to take over the job of these bodies and surely never expected Ms Vella to quote their recommendations in order to justify her claim that the case was decided by them and had to be closed.

There is one last point that needs clarification. If, as Ms Vella states, the experts did decide the outcome of the project, what was the purpose of her petition against it? Were all those who signed experts? We Maltese are indeed blessed to have Astrid Vella protect us, but who is protecting us from her?

Antoine Vella

BALZAN