The government's plans to allow the regularisation and concession of illegal developments is "a clear admission" that the country "struggled" with enforcement, regardless of who was in government, PL MP Carmelo Abela said.

The government has issued a number legal notices tied to the planning sector for public consultation. Through them, the government is proposing that illegal developments, built prior to 1994 on land located Outside the Development Zone (ODZ), be eligible for regularisation, and that illegal developments built before 2016 within the development zone also be eligible for regularisation. It also proposes that illegal developments that took place up until 2024 be eligible for a concession. 

Asked whether he believes the government's plans for regularisation and concession send the wrong message, a message that people can do whatever they want and then they would be able to regularise it eventually, Abela said "it can be interpreted that way".

He said that those who abused would not necessarily be big fish, "we are also talking about individuals".

"It could send that message. But without wanting to say it, a clear admission is that we struggle a lot with enforcement in this country, regardless of who was in government and whoever was leading the authorities. We are still struggling with the enforcement of laws."

He said that with the bills, trying to regulate "isn't necessarily a bad thing now when you have these irregularities, some of which are minor and others more substantial. It is an admission that we always failed in enforcement, whoever was in government, whoever was leading the authority. I believe however that we cannot continue heading in that direction".

He stressed the importance of laws providing powers for enforcement to take place as soon as possible. "Meaning that when there is an enforcement order or a report, action must be taken without delay. That is the only way we will learn."

"The substantial increase in fines is good, but we don't want to give the impression that if someone is powerful enough they can just pay the fine and what was built irregularly would be sanctioned legally."

He spoke of the need to work more on enforcement, adding that it is not easy to do so. As an example, he mentioned that when he was a minister with the Department of Industrial Relations under his remit, they had tried to increase the number of people working on enforcement, "but it is not a job people would most want to do."

As for whether it would send a stronger message if enforcement action is finally taken rather than regularisation, he argues that in an ideal world the answer would be yes.

"But you need to look at what is practical, both from the aspect of the authorities, and also vis-a-vis the kind of development that took place. For example, if you have a home in which people are living, what makes more sense, to demolish their home and they end up on the street, or that, as long as they are not affecting traffic flow for instance, their home be regularised?"

He gave another example of a room in a field, asking whether it is affecting anyone. "It depends on what development there is, if it is a villa in a field that is one thing, but if it is a room being used to store tools by a farmer...."

"There need to be certain compromises."

He said that if the individual had applied for a permit, it likely would have been granted on many occasions, but noted that people often went ahead with development without bothering to apply. He believes that there could be many such circumstances. 

Aside from the legal notices, the government also published two planning bills, which were also the subject of strong criticism. Asked whether there is anything he would like to change about the planning bills, he said that more than the bills, he believes the country needs to look at development and planning differently.

"Our land is what it is, and I think we need to hold a wider discussion regarding how much we can handle having more types of development. It depends on what angle we will look at development and land management together. The government is right to say that ODZ is ODZ and that there be no development on it." He spoke of the characteristics of villages, specifically mentioning zones which contain older buildings, "and it is important for these to be preserved and conserved, that the style of the zone not change even if certain planning policies and laws permit there to be certain changes such as when it comes to building heights".

"With regards to the two bills specifically, there are good elements, one of which is that if an appeal is filed, works on a permit must stop." He also believes the introduction of a timeframe for appeals is a good idea, and said that the argument whether five or six months is enough is something that could be discussed. 

Abela cautioned against granting ministers certain powers over planning decisions, noting that while it was necessary during Covid for ministers to grant permit extensions, he believes that in normal circumstances such extensions should come from planners rather than politicians.

Abela stressed the importance of the public consultation exercise, however believes it should have taken place before the bills were published. He said the government is now explaining more its intentions regarding the proposals, adding that he believes there are good intentions. "It is good that consultation is taking place now, and it seems from what I've heard, that the government is moving on a number of points in the bills."

Responding to another question, he mentioned development aesthetics. People might not mind five- or six-storey buildings, but the issue would be the way buildings are built. He said that certain traditions, like the Maltese balcony, are rarely seen.

"I see nothing wrong with being able to construct high rises in a modern zone, but at least they should have certain aesthetics that reflect our culture even in construction, and the Planning Authority needs to be stronger in this regard." 

HSBC heist allegations

Abela was at the centre of a scandal after it was alleged that he was tied to a failed HSBC bank heist in 2010, an allegation he strongly denies.

Last year Abela won a libel case against lawyer Jason Azzopardi, over a social media post alleging Abela's link to the failed heist. The appeal was also decided in favour of Abela in June this year.

Others who mentioned Abela in connection to the heist were George and Alfred Degiorgio, who are both in prison over the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.

Abela said he has always, and continues to maintain his innocence.

"I don't know how anyone made up this story about me," he said, when asked why he believes the Degiorgios pointed the finger at him. "The accusation was very serious. But how could someone put me into this story when I have absolutely nothing to do with it?"

He said that the Degiorgios mentioned his name after someone else had done so, in reference to the social media post by lawyer Jason Azzopardi which was the subject of the libel case. "They (the Degiorgios) weren't the first to mention my name."

He said that before that, there had been mention "of an MP or sitting minister or something like that. But I was not the only MP or minister."

Told that he was the one who had worked for HSBC, he said there could have been other people who worked with HSBC in the past. "I can't understand how and why (I was mentioned), and I would like to know the reason why someday, as I had absolutely nothing to do with it." 

He also said that "when you read certain things about how bank security works, which I will obviously not speak about, it shows that they know absolutely nothing".

When asked, Abela told this newsroom that he had never been investigated by the bank. 

He recalled a time when he had gone to testify in court regarding the bank heist. "I had been questioned by the media about it, asking me whether I had gone to court, but at that time I didn't remember. When I checked, I had gone as a representative of the bank, not because the court had summoned me (...) The bank asked me to go as its representative to confirm or not the technical issue the magistrate wanted to ask about."

"It wasn't a case of the court or police summoning me, but they sent for a bank representative, and the bank chose me to go." He testified behind closed doors, he said, as the bank asked him to request to do so in case he was asked about bank security. He said his testimony lasted not more than five minutes, and included questions such as to confirm his name, address, what his work was at the bank, and about the technical point the court wanted to ask about. He said some said they had his testimony but nobody published it, "because not publishing leaves peoples with suspicions".

Abela also said that the police had not sent for him over the heist, noting that between 2010 (the year of the heist) and 2013 the PN was in government, "and I don't think they would have had any intention of defending me".

He said that nobody ever mentioned him in relation to the case at the time, but then "someone decided to fabricate this story. That is why it is strange. But then you start to think that there were some who wanted presidential pardons, maybe they weren't given that pardon and wanted to see how they could invent stories for their own reasons. I'm not sure, and those are just my own thoughts, as I see no reason why I was brought into this story." 

"I have always been serene because I never did such things and I was never involved."

Asked why he hadn't filed legal action against others who had mentioned him, like he had against Azzopardi, to show he wanted to prove his innocence at every turn, Abela said that "there is a difference between a sitting MP and a criminal".

He said that it was a sitting MP making a serious allegation, and that a sitting MP has more standing than criminals. He also said that Azzopardi was the first person to say his name. Abela said he couldn't not file a libel case against him.

He said that there were others he could have filed a libel case against, "but I don't think I need to file libels left and right and spend three-and-a-half years going to court, with the story coming up over and over again mentioning the same things in which there is nothing new except for lies and slander".

As for how the allegations affected him, Abela said that the impact on his family is what he worried about most. "While I was always at peace and my conscience never had any reason to worry about this, I saw the suffering my family went through. I saw this clearly, particularly on the day the magistrate delivered the original decision, where I met with my wife and children for dinner and I could see my children's faces. It wasn't because they had any doubts before, but rather because someone else, in this case the court, gave such a strong decision regarding the libel case I opened, it was a sigh of relief for them. Then you start to realise how they had suffered in silence."

Later during the interview he also said that the least he would have expected was an apology from PN Leader Bernard Grech after the court judgements, saying that Grech had mentioned him before. "If not to me, then to my family."

Asked if he would welcome an investigation into him even to clear everything up, he said that when Azzopardi made the allegation against him, "which has now been shown to be a lie through the court judgement", the newspapers had been writing about it. He said he had personally called the police, explaining that the situation could not go on as it was, and informed them that he would go to police headquarters so they could ask him whatever questions they needed. "The feedback I received was that if they wanted to ask me questions they would send for me, there was no need for me to go, and that if they had anything to ask me they would have done so years ago."

"I kept insisting and went to the police headquarters. And it was the same thing, that they didn't have anything to ask me about the case." He said that he told them that he wanted them to do something. "I imagine they took that message as two days later they called me. I imagine, and I say imagine as I don't have this information, that they might have sent for some people in the meantime and then they asked me to go to the police HQ. I went with my lawyer, and they told me they were going to ask me some questions."

"The questions were of a general nature, what is your name and surname, what your job was at the bank, etc. But as such on the case per se, there weren't any questions." 

He said he would be the happiest person if someone were to come forward and state that an investigation had been carried out and absolutely nothing was found.

"I believe the police did their work both before 2013 and if it was needed also after 2013."

Abela never returned to HSBC after his term as a minister ended. He denied that this was because the bank was suspicious of him or that he was angry at the bank. "After the case occurred when I was still a bank employee, I was given a promotion. I don't think I was given a promotion because they were suspicious of me." 

"After the last election, I could have gone back to the bank if I wanted to, and there was that offer for me to return, but I decided that the time had come for me to find new work." He explained that being cut off from the banking system for nine years would require time to reintegrate, and that he would essentially return to the same position and grade he held in 2014.

Asked if he intends to contest the upcoming general election, he said yes, and that he has already started campaigning.

Government advertising

The Standards Commissioner had issued guidelines regarding government adverts. Abela himself had a case where the Standards Commissioner found a breach when he was minister, but the Standards Committee voted not to adopt the report. The Commissioner continues to receive complaints related to advertising and had recommended incorporating the guidelines into law. 

Abela said that he does not agree that providing information is advertising.

"My case occurred when George Hyzler was the Standards Commissioner. At the time the Commissioner had said that there weren't any guidelines, so then what was I judged on? On nothing. Did the Commissioner do well that day to judge you negatively on something on which there weren't even guidelines in place at the time? I think he was wrong." 

He said guidelines were introduced later. "As for whether they should be law or not is secondary. What is important is that there are guidelines, and that they are followed."

He referred to the case involving Transport Minister Chris Bonett, which was over a statement Bonnet issued through the Department of Information. The Standards Commissioner's report was recently sent to the Standards Committee, which means that an ethics breach was found. "I did not see the statement, but it seems that there was some form of back and forth with the Opposition. The Opposition said what it had to say, and the minister is responding in his capacity as minister in that sector, and so I see nothing wrong with him responding through the Department of Information. Again I do not know what the content of the press release was."

Speaking generally, and not about any particular case, he said: "I see nothing wrong that a minister responds through the Department of Information as long as the answer does not include insults of a politically partisan nature. But that there be comments that might sting a bit... Are we going to the other extreme that a minister cannot say anything?"

" Does it count as advertising when the government explains or provides information about what is happening? That is giving information. In my case it was because there was a big photo, and I sincerely did not know how the page would look, but I shoulder responsibility, no problem whatsoever. But we gave information about the work we were doing together with the DIER. So doesn't the public have a right to be informed and to know about the work that was done? Now as to whether my face should have been that big or not is debatable and we can discuss." He said that back then there weren't any guidelines. "So it was as though someone was jailed over something there is no law about."

He said that guidelines were drafted after that case, and he agrees with having them.