Opposition proposes fund for profit made by Lands Authority

Profits generated by the Lands Authority should not be transferred to the government’s consolidated fund and should instead be transferred to a separate fund where they will be used by the government to pay back citizens for land expropriations, according to the Opposition.

“We believe the government should make an effort to correct injustices that occurred in the past, many of which took place under a Labour government,” Nationalist MP Ryan Callus said.

Callus was speaking in Parliament as the proposed Government Land Act makes its way through the committee stage of the legislative process. He said it was a Nationalist government through the work of Tonio Borg that added the requirement for transactions to be immediately concluded, while stressing that there will still many pending cases.

Parliamentary secretary for planning Deborah Schembri pointed out that the proposed law “contemplates” a Lands Authority which has its own bank account and is able to receive its own funding, adding that discussions were ongoing with the finance ministry to determine how much of its profit will be kept by the authority with the rest being transferred to the consolidated fund.

“I agree that the aim is a good one, and I praise Tonio Borg’s very necessary work however we can’t be myopic in our vision and assume that the money the authority makes is only needed for expropriations,” she said.

According to Schembri, the authority is often faced with requests for the renovation and conservation of historical buildings, among other expenses, and it is unrealistic to expect all profits to be used to pay off expropriations. 

“I can assure you, however, that there are discussions ongoing with the ministry of finance for the money that does not go to the consolidated fund to be used to pay off expropriations,” she added.

The opposition stated that it disagreed that citizens who have appealed a case contesting an expropriation, must be given a decision within six months rather than four.

Callus argued that it is difficult to impose timeframes on adjudicators and questioned what remedies would be available to people at law in situations where a decision is not handed down within the given time period.

Schembri pointed out that the previous administration had passed a number of laws which required a decision within four months, adding that the courts were aware of imposed time frames. Moreover, she said that if the law states that a decision must be handed down within six months, any delay would constitute a breach of one’s fundamental human right.

Regarding the right for authorities to enter a property once it has been announced that it is to be requisitioned, and this has not been contested, the government proposed an amendment that would see authorities take this action immediately, rather than following a 14-day period as the law currently stands.

Callus argued that rather than being removed, this should be increased to 60 days, and accused the government of working to be able to kick anyone out of a property whenever it wanted.

However, Schembri pushed back against these claims and pointed out that as things stand, in cases where land has been deemed to be of public interest, the government has the right to evict tenants immediately.

“Previously, in evictions taking place for public interest, the person would have had to leave immediately because government takes over immediately. 14 days were given in order for there to be some time before the property is taken but this was superseded by the fact that 50 days have been given to contest the eviction,” Schembri said, stressing that the only practical difference to the law was the fact that the right to contest was now being granted.

Another point of contention was the fact that under the proposed law, a person has five years to contest the value of an expropriation, something the Opposition said was in breach on people’s fundamental human rights. Schembri replied by stressing that the principle of prescription was a key part of civil law and that even cases of a breach of fundamental human rights are subject to prescription.

In addition to this, she said that the law will be introducing new methods for the valuation of lands, with an obligation for property worth more than a certain value be carried out by three architects. She said it was reasonable to expect there to be some legal certainty if people chose not to contest the compensation within five years.

The Opposition was also against the President of the Republic appointing magistrates to the arbitration board, insisting that this should be done by the Chief Justice. Callus argued that, constitutionally speaking, whenever the President nominates someone to a position, this is always based on a nomination made by the justice minister, even if not explicitly stated.

“Boards like this should not be appointed by politicians because they will have some degree of loyalty to the government of the day,” Callus said, who stressed that the board in question will have significant powers.

Schembri disagreed stating that it did not make sense for the judiciary to appoint the judiciary. “We are living in a country where there is separation of powers. We are talking about an appointment and all appointments to administrative boards are made by the President,” she said.