Updated | Farrugia proposes independent institute for policy-making

Backbencher Marlene Farrugia suggested the setting up of an independent institute responsible from the drafting and designing of policies which would then be adopted by the government.

According to Farrugia, the independent experts would provide the necessary expertise devoid of any partisan rubberstamp in the drafting of policies.

Addressing the parliamentary discussion on a motion amending the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED), the Labour MP said that the government of the day would then be judged on the successful implementation or otherwise of the implementation of the policy.

“The independent institute of experts would draft the policies, spanning more than five years, which would be devoid of the partisan short-sightedness that policies are usually marred with,” Farrugia said, pointing towards comments made by the Chamber of Commerce that the country should steer away from political involvement in policies.

The Chamber said that policies are better managed by the technocrats.

Farrugia said the institute would not replace the authority, whose responsibility is to ensure the correct implementation of the policies. She added that, at the end of the day, all can be written and said but it all depended on their implementation.

She said that Malta was developing at a fast pace and the government had to seek a balance between environment protection and socio-economic development. Farrugia insisted that documents should be as clear as possible, without allowing room for interpretation.

She pointed out that the SPED was not above the law, and any doubts would be immediately addressed by the legislation.

Farrugia called on the government to regenerate buildings and lands already in use: “This government must show that it is in favour of investment but not at the expense of our natural heritage.”

SPED comes after 16 years’ delay – parliamentary secretary

The SPED – the successor of the Malta’s Structure Plan – is 16 years late, parliamentary secretary Michael Falzon said.

Addressing parliament, Falzon said it was a privilege to finally present a report which was not voted against by the parliamentary select committee for environment and planning. The Opposition abstained on the vote arguing that it was in favour in the way the document had been improved but still had a number of reservations.

Falzon said that the structure plan had been riddled with loopholes and the aim of the SPED was to tie together the good of the past with the vision for the future.

“This is not a policy but a long-term strategic vision,” he said, adding that it should be seen in a different light from the structural plan.

Falzon said the government had not only launched the documentation for public consultation, but had received feedback from e-NGOs before it was presented to parliament.

Indeed, a number of e-NGOs were invited by committee chair Marlene Farrugia to give their view on the SPED. The NGOs had complained that very little of what they had suggested had been included in the SPED and Farrugia – in the presence of MEPA CEO Johann Buttigieg – would invite the NGOs to present their proposals in order to amend the document.

Falzon said the structure plan’s relevance was dated to the 90s and the SPED was aimed at providing guidelines for a developing Malta.

Opposition says SPED lacks detail, ‘takes people for a ride’

Shadow environment minister Marthese Portelli and PN MP Ryan Callus lambasted the SPED as a document that lacked detail and which takes people for a ride.

“There is nothing new in this document, other than retouching the 1990 objectives and changing a few things here and there to suit your needs,” Callus said, saying that the SPED allowed for land reclamation, among others.

“I’m lost for words because I cannot understand how you can come here and fool pool. This is case of plagiarism,” he said, adding that the 1990 structure plan was a 20-year vision.

Callus argued that the SPED went against the law because it did not specify justified reasons for proposed developments. According to the Siggiewi MP, the SPED created even more loopholes.

On her part, Portelli thanked Marlene Farrugia “who was instrumental in allowing NGOs to give their views”.

Portelli said that there was minimal improvement between the original draft and the one presented to the plenary. She said that the SPED lacked detail and was in conflict with other policies. By way of example, while a policy stipulates the amount of parking spaces that a developer needs to provide for, the SPED says that these standards have to be revised.

“What is going to guide the architects then?” Portelli asked.

Among other issues raised, Portelli said it was unacceptable that the SPED considered the “feasibility” of the project as a specification: “Experts themselves have described this word as opening up a myriad of loopholes which would lead to the approval of undesirable projects.”