Air traffic company given title to its properties

The House of Representatives yesterday started debating a motion for Malta Air Traffic Services Ltd (MATS) to be granted title of the properties it already occupies.

Public Investments Minister Austin Gatt explained that MATS was a commercial company in name only. It was actually a non-commercial wholly owned government company responsible for air navigation services. More than 80 per cent of its revenue came through Eurocontrol, the grouping of European nations for air traffic control over Europe.

The company was set up in 1992 when it assumed responsibility for air traffic control from the Department of Civil Aviation and Malta International Airport.

The minister explained that the sites which were being formally assigned on 65-year emphyteusis were assumed by the company upon its formation two years ago. They included air navigation facilities at Rinella, a signal station at Benghajsa, the control tower and other facilities at the airport, the radar at Dingli, a direction beacon at Kercem and facilities at the Gozo heliport, among others.

The government had decided to grant the properties on emphyteusis so that the transfer could appear on the company's balance sheet. The company was being precluded from transferring the properties to third parties, Dr Gatt said. The emphyteusis would be Lm12 per metre, Lm1 million in all.

Labour MP Joe Brincat said he could not understand how the properties were being transferred on emphyteusis and yet transfer to third parties was being precluded.

Why had the government opted for emphyteusis and not rent?

Interjecting, Dr Gatt said that the decision was taken for balance sheet purposes since the properties would appear as assets.

Continuing, Dr Brincat asked if that meant the properties could be used as collateral for borrowing.

He insisted that air traffic control should always remain in Maltese hands.

Dr Brincat also spoke on the need for reform of the Disposal of Government Land Act. He referred to the Rabat golf course development application and said it was incongruous that one could apply for a development permit on land which he did not fully own. In the golf course case, part of the land was owned by the government. Why should Mepa go into the trouble of going through the development process before the ownership issue was settled? Surely there should be government and parliamentary approval before government-owned land was allocated for particular projects by the private sector? Would the government's hand have been forced had Mepa approved the project?

Dr Brincat observed that the emphyteusis on the properties being transferred to MATS, at Lm12 per metre charged to a government-owned company was far higher than what was charged a few months ago to the Casino Maltese, which occupied a prime site in Valletta. Concluding, Dr Brincat said the opposition was not against the motion, but it should serve for reflection on the wider issue of disposal of government property.

Labour MP Roderick Galdes discussed various aspects of government property ownership. He recalled that a Labour government had started the process for the government to have a proper index of the properties it held, including former Church properties administered by the Joint Office.

It should be a government priority to reduce bureaucracy at the Lands Department and the Joint Office for the transfer of property to its own bodies, including local councils.

Local councils had a major funding problem and it had been repeatedly suggested that some government properties be transferred for administration and revenue-generating activities by the councils.

Although some initiatives had been taken, the councils had come up against a wall of bureaucracy with transfers taking up to three years, as if both sides did not trust each other.

The Labour MP also insisted that the government should exercise control over its properties to avoid abuse by certain people. Empty government buildings should also be put to use, not least to help the housing sector and breathe new life to village cores. One should also see which sites within the development areas could be used for government housing to ease price pressures in the housing sector.

Mr Galdes also called for an efficient mechanism to enable tenants of properties administered by the Joint Office to redeem their emphyteusis.

Stefan Buontempo (MLP) referred to land expropriated for the development of Malta Freeport. Now that the Freeport was to be privatised, when would the land owners be compensated?

Indeed, the government owed millions of liri to property owners who had had their properties expropriated supposedly for a public purpose. These people deserved to be compensated too.

Turning to the possession and use system, Dr Buontempo said red tape was preventing thousands of people from being able to buy the property where they lived.

Dr Buontempo said a Labour government would never reintroduce the law on requisitions. However, when would the government de-requisition the 9,000 properties currently under requisition order?

The Labour MP insisted that the government's estate management division needed to be given the resources it needed to work efficiently.

He also asked what was to happen to the Fort Chambray project and the White Rocks project, which involved government property.

Concluding, he said it should be made easier for tenants of government houses to buy the properties.

Concluding, Public Investments Minister Austin Gatt again explained why the properties were being given on emphyteusis, not lease. He said this did not mean banks could take over those properties in case of borrowing. He said there was no intention by the government to privatise air traffic services. Indeed, companies such as this should eventually become government agencies.

The motion was then approved.