Political interference?

I was flabbergasted to see that in the interview with Minister George Pullicino (July 3), the government's role in the rationalisation of development boundaries exercise was described by The Times as "political interference".

When the Planning Authority (later Mepa) was set up, Parliament did not create a state within a state - as some lament that it did, while others rue that it did not.

While giving a lot of powers to Mepa, the law reserved the responsibility of amending the Structure Plan and changing the limits of development to Parliament. Mepa could suggest changes (as it has done in the Local Plan exercise) but it is Parliament's responsibility to decide on such changes.

Irrespective of whether one agrees with them or not, any eventual modifications of the development boundaries must be approved by Parliament as part of its duties and responsibilities.

To call this process political interference is the height of absurdity. Using the same yardstick, any law approved by Cabinet and enacted by Parliament is "political interference"!

Editor's note: The correspondent of course has every right to make his own argument. Those who disagree with the "rationalisation" exercise are free to think otherwise.