In the run up days to the parliamentary Easter Recess I asked the Prime Minister to table all the Mepa Auditor reports related to Natura 2000 sites

Although in his reply the PM informed me that he was tabling four documents and reports, in actual fact he only tabled two. Why remains a mystery.

Perhaps that might be solved if he chooses to reply to a parliamentary question to this effect that I have just tabled.

The tabled audit reports by Mepa’s auditor who both the Prime Minister and the Mepa Chairman have often taken to task, in spite of Dr Mario de Marco’s occasional bouts of ‘praise’ definitely put government to shame.

The bottom line is that in the last Mepa Annual Report that we debated in Parliament last year it was evident that most of the auditor’s recommendations had fallen on deaf ears.

This goes to prove that Mepa was and seems pre-destined to remain a planning driven authority no matter how much certain speculators might try and give the impression that it tilts far too much towards the environment – almost as if this was tantamount to a mortal sin.

If Labour falls into the same trap if elected into power, it will be making a mockery of its statutory obligations to uphold the environment as one of its main values and beliefs.

Back to the auditor’s reports.

Rather than passing or adding any subjective comments of my own I will lift some quotes that speak for themselves and allow your learned readers to reach their own conclusions:

“The DPA report did not examine the implications of the scheduling of the area as an Area of Ecological Importance.

“The file concerning the application was also examined. This is still in the preliminary stages of assessment. It was however noted that when consultees were identified, the environment protection directorate was not included…

“This investigation highlights that issues concerning environmental matters, in this case the applicability of the EU Habitats Directive, are not taken seriously by Mepa…

“All applications processed (by the Nationalist Government) between the 26 September 2003 and the 14 November 2003 did not take into consideration the issues raised by the transposition of the EU Habitats Directive into Maltese legislation for the simple reason that the information was not made available. Nor were applications, subsequently submitted, adequately assessed.”

Watch out for this one:

“The files examined lead to the conclusion that Mepa is reluctant to tackle environment issues in analysing development applications. this necessarily leads to the conclusion that the assumption by Mepa of the duties forming part of the Environment Protection Act 2001 has failed to deliver tangible positive results…

“The inclusion of conditions requiring the consent of the Environmental Protection Directorate as happened in permits... does not solve the problems created by the Planning Directorate in its defective and short-sighted assessment and by the DCC through approval of the applications, as the permits issues are fundamentally flawed in view of the fact that they ignore the obligations shouldered by Malta through the adoption of the EU Habitats Directive and transposed in Maltese legislation through in 257/03.

“In addition it does not make sense for Mepa to issue a permit through the DCC in terms of the Development Planning Act and in the same permit, to subject it to three additional permits… this is a classic example of maladministration... who is to be held accountable for that? Mepa should be held accountable as an institution for the breach of the EU Habitats Directive...”

Please note once again. These are the auditor’s words not mine.

In one of the amendments that I personally tabled during the Mepa Reform Bill discussion in Parliament I had insisted on an effective file audit trail. From the reply I recently obtained to a parliamentary question of mine in which I tried to track progress on this issue, I found that there is still a long way to go before one can safely say that all is in place… as it should have always been.

If proof is needed why such an audit trail is imperative, not only have I heard of cases where files were allegedly deliberately misplaced or even lost, but according to the auditor’s report that I am quoting from there was a specific case where:

“This office (the auditor’s office) was informed that these Minutes are not available as the information which was stored electronically was lost due to a damaged hard disk!”

I had always thought that only hard copies of files got mislaid. But it now seems that the same ill fate also awaited electronic files too.

When certain decisions were taken there was not even any record as to the number of DCC members who supported certain controversial partial decisions and therefore the audit office cannot confirm whether it conformed to the relative sections of the Development Planning Act which required then the support of not less than four members of the DCC for a Commission’s decision to be binding.

These are the credibility tests that the so called reformed Mepa is currently facing.

They will also be the equally daunting challenges that a new Labour administration will face in the coming months.

Responsible and self respecting persons will obviously make their own judgment purely on the basis of results achieved.

[email protected]

www.leobrincat.com

Leo Brincat is the Shadow Minister for the Environment, Sustainable Development & Climate Change