Astrid Vella doesn't believe in MEPA. But then she cites MEPA's people as her 'experts'.

One of my sisters posted this comment beneath Antoine Vella’s (no relation, incidentally, and nor to Mrs Vella). I hadn’t thought of it this way, but then I always said that she’s much sharper than I am.

Corinne Vella

There’s something in the debate on this topic (not just here) that doesn’t quite add up.

FAA bases the validity of its claims on views expressed by ‘the experts’, by which they mean members of the heritage advisory committee (HAC)at the MEPA. What appears to set those experts apart from their peers, in FAA’s view, is that they represent the MEPA, which FAA does not trust. That prompts three questions.

1. If the FAA believes in the expertise of the MEPA consultants it cites, why subvert their official position in the planning process? Wouldn’t it have been more in keeping with FAA’s stated position to allow the HAC to fulfill its function in the context of established planning processes?

2. If the FAA believes that MEPA and established planning procedures are unreliable because the MEPA officials and consultants are untrustworthy, why rely on MEPA consultants rather than commissioning independent reports?

3. If it is the planning processes that are defective, rather than the people engaged in them, then wouldn’t it be more effective all round to lobby for securing planning procedures – a line of action that could dovetail with lobbying for the protection of the cathedral and its artefacts?