When an Opposition matters

The 5,000 year old Ta’ Hagrat temples in Mgarr have been, at last, spared from a two-storey development a few metres away. Government has finally taken the decision to expropriate the land in question, the only legal means left for the site to remain undeveloped.
But had it not been for the Opposition’s parliamentary resolution, forcing a debate in parliament and requesting the land to be expropriated, would Government have acted? It didn’t seem like it. Government had ample time to act. Once an appeal to revoke the permit, filed by the Mgarr Local Council, was turned down, no political intervention seemed forthcoming.
This is what led to the initiative – in the form of an online petition organised by the environmental NGO Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar – which garnered 2,500 signatories. Yet still, no action was taken to expropriate the land. At that point, it became evident that unless the Opposition intervened, the development would go ahead.
Having studied the site history, it transpired that a previous application in 2008 had been turned down, following strong objections from the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage and Heritage Malta. Their objections were based on the fact that the site lies adjacent to a Grade A archaeological site, over which no development should take place.
Furthermore, on a separate site adjacent to Ta’ Hagrat, a decision to expropriate was taken by the then Nationalist Government following the issuance of a development permission. Why expropriate then but turn a blind eye now?
Much has been said on the site’s inclusion within the development zone. Contrary to what has been widely reported, and in particular to Alternattiva Demokratika’s claim, the development boundaries surrounding the site remained unchanged during the 2006 rationalisation exercise. It was only in 1989 that Parliament approved the development boundaries, which have remained unchanged since.
Nonetheless, what should matter most, prior to any other consideration, is the protection of the temple’s status as a World Heritage Site. This was the essence of the Opposition’s Parliamentary Motion and it certainly was not a stunt of political opportunism. Cognisant of the fact that previous administrations have each had their own shortcomings, I belief that Members of Parliament are not elected to defend the past. There is no doubt that historians would do a better job in that case.
In our parliamentary resolution, the Opposition has refrained from using a partisan or divisive tone, as that would not have contributed anything to safeguard Ta’ Hagrat. Had that been the case, the issue would have degenerated into another typical political struggle.
Now that we have all agreed that the site is to be expropriated, it is necessary to ensure that similar situations are avoided altogether. It is for this reason that the time is right for Parliament to enact more stringent planning laws that are more sensitive to our cultural heritage. Such laws should not be open to interpretation or provide room for subjectivity through exceptions. When it comes to safeguarding cultural heritage, wrong decisions are often irreversible and that is why this country cannot afford the luxury of a second chance.
Without any further delay, government should task MEPA to commission a holistic study of all major archaeological sites, to ensure that this story is not repeated. The fact that, for some reason or other, a development so close to a 5,000-year-old World Heritage Site was indeed permissible calls for an immediate assessment to ensure this is not repeated.  
In his press release announcing the land expropriation, my colleague Michael Falzon stated that government is committed to safeguarding our cultural heritage. The Opposition welcomes this statement, but whether this is the case is yet to be proven. Two proposals in particular, relating to the MEPA demerger, concern historical scheduled buildings. Eliminating the sixth schedule, which prohibits sanctioning of illegal works within scheduled buildings, and providing for the reconsideration of scheduling after ten years does not represent a commitment on behalf of the Government towards safeguarding our cultural heritage.
I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will be willing to discuss the matter in an attempt to find an acceptable way forward, with the aim to first and foremost safeguard the common good. This is yet another opportunity where our cultural heritage should serve to unite us.

Ryan Callus is the Opposition spokesperson for Planning and the Simplification of Administrative Processes