Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi told Parliament yesterday that there had been a tenfold rise in the eviction of squatters between 2004 and last year. At the same time, opposition spokesman Anġlu Farrugia accused the government of preferential treatment, a claim Dr Azzopardi denied.

Introducing the second reading of a Bill amending various land laws, Dr Azzopardi said there had been 70 evictions and inspections in 2004, and in the successive years these went up to 83, 95, 157, 334, 424 and 778 in 2010. This was possible through the commitment of the Commissioner of Lands, enforcement officers and freephone 1577 to report public property abuse.

The government was committed to keep fighting abuse. It was unfair and unacceptable that certain people thought they were above the law.

Certain investigations to ascertain land titles had to go back 200 years. Documents registering the foreshore of Fomm ir-Riħ dated back to 1655.

Dr Azzopardi said the Bill would eliminate certain legal and practical difficulties in the compulsory eviction from illegally-occupied government land and to set up parliamentary procedures for the modification of contracts of lease and emphyteusis when this would be necessary for public purposes.

The commissioner would be enabled to address the eviction order to the occupant where the identity of the evictee was unknown. Moreover, he would not need to instruct a police inspector to execute enforcement. Any police official would suffice. This was a practical approach because enforcement had increased.

The commissioner would not be required to provide alternative storage for any movable effects existing on the land, and neither would he be held responsible for their safe custody. Their removal would be carried out at the complete risk and expense of the evictee. An inventory would be made and should be signed by the commissioner or his representative and by a police officer.

An eviction order would be served by the executive police or by an official or person authorised by the commissioner.

The evictee would be liable to refund any expenses in connection with the eviction. The person evicted would be given 15 days to compensate the commissioner for the expenses related to the eviction. If he failed, the commissioner would be able to sell the movables by public auction.

As the law stood, any change of a condition in a contract of lease, emphyteusis or sub-emphyteusis should not take place unless one issued a tender. Dr Azzopardi said that while this was legal, it was unjust.

To address these anomalies, changes in conditions could be done without a tender; but the minister should, within four weeks from such agreement, lay a copy on the Table of the House and the House would have 28 days to reject such amendment.

Dr Azzopardi said this reflected seriousness, accountability and transparency because the issue would ultimately be referred to the House.

Dr Farrugia said the procedure employed in the Bill needed to be clearer and a clause ought to be introduced to limit the ­number of court cases against the commissioner. The safeguard in question would grant redress to victims of procedural abuses.

This was relevant because various decisions were taken to evict persons from property, wholly or in part, even after this was allowed by the same commissioner.

Dr Farrugia said there were a number of preferential treatments in eviction cases. A kiosk owner in Marsaxlokk, who he said was a friend of the Minister of Gozo, had been granted permission to lay out chairs and tables near the shore and occupy a larger area. Other kiosk owners, known as Labour sympathisers, had not been allowed such advantages. To exacerbate the situation, they were evicted by the Commissioner of Land on the advice of some Nationalist MPs.

He condemned similar actions taken by former Labour administrations.

He referred to cases where leases had been terminated illegally while the property was vacant because the occupier was working abroad. The action, he claimed, had been taken because a person close to a minister had requested the property.

Dr Farrugia said this was evidence of abuse of power by government members. It showed that justice was not always done.

It was due to such incidents that a safeguard provision needed to be inserted into the Bill. Such abuses had to be avoided. Decisions should not be taken arbitrarily and eviction should only be resorted to if all the procedures contemplated at law had been exhausted.

Dr Farrugia proposed proper timing for the service of the eviction order in order to minimise procedural abuses.

Referring to damages which could accrue during an eviction, he questioned the legal sense behind an obligation to carry out an inventory of movables in the property to be evicted when the Bill then stated that the Commissioner of Land was not to be held responsible for these movables.

The government should be clear on this point because the Bill did not propose a position. This would protect third parties who had been misled into thinking they were occupying land by a valid title. On the other hand he said it was fair enough for illegal occupiers to pay back eviction expenses.

Interjecting, Dr Azzopardi said there was a cardinal difference between encroachment and emphyteusis. Encroachment was purely a tolerance title. The qualification of both should be open for discussion at committee stage.

Continuing, Dr Farrugia said that, in itself, the term emphyteusis, as a title, bore a greater strength than tolerance. It was not worth attaching importance to the changing of the condition from the title. The real issue was in situations where one found land of a higher commercial value.

He called for a better understanding of the limitations mentioned in the Bill. Were limitations relevant to all types of leases and emphyteusis?

The way the Bill was formulated allowed for abuse and he called for distinctions. It currently faced legal and procedural difficulties, particularly in the sphere of illegal occupation of properties, as well as the distinction between rent and emphyteusis.

Winding up the debate, Dr Azzopardi denied Dr Farrugia’s allegations of nepotism in ­evictions.

Malta, he said, was still suffering the brunt of decisions taken by previous Labour administrations, paying thousands of euro in compensation for expropriated properties.

Malta was now facing the consequences of this. It was worrying that the Maltese were having to pay up. The Labour government at the time had taken a decision on private land whose value had increased considerably. The government was now suffering the consequences of those wrongdoings.

Dr Azzopardi estimated that between 1,200 and 1,400 individuals were occupying property on a promise-of-sale agreement. They still lacked title to the property occupied. He highlighted the need to take stock of such cases in order to address the issue.

It was important to distinguish between illegal occupation and termination of rent. This Bill was not increasing the power of the Commissioner of Land, but it was facilitating enforcement.

He explained that the inventory of assets on the property of the evictee was done in order to be transparent and in the interests of all parties concerned. He mentioned the case of the Magic Kiosk in Sliema, when the person involved had claimed that a number of objects and cash had been stolen. It had later been found that this was not the case and everything was according to the inventory he himself had signed.

Dr Azzopardi said a number of precautions were taken before enforcement took place, especially where animals were involved.

Such precautions included having a veterinary surgeon and animal welfare personnel on site to safeguard animals. Even though the government had a legal right to proceed with the enforcement, it gave animal breeders some three weeks’ notice to evacuate the premises and find an alternative location.

He pointed out that 99.5 per cent of cases of enforcement were ­correct.

The Bill was unanimously approved.