Government U-turn on the environment

Labour MP Roderick Galdes said yesterday that the government's decision to extend development zones was further confirmation of its U-turn on the environment.

Mr Galdes said in Parliament that everyone, except for Minister Pullicino, the Building Industry Consultative Council (BICC), some people within Mepa and the developers, was against this extension.

Those who were against included the Church, the Chamber of Architects, the Gaia Foundation, Nature Trust, Din l-Art Helwa, Fondazzjoni Wirt Artna, the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association and the Malta Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprise (GRTU). Some 70 per cent of respondents to an opinion poll in The Times had expressed themselves against the process.

The opposition, he said, had had the courage to give its MPs a free vote but the government did not have the same courage because there were Nationalist MPs who were against the process and who had privately said that this process was damaging their party. Would MPs Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Joe Falzon and Joe Cassar indicate where they stood?

Referring to the proceedings within the select committee of the House, which discussed the development zones last week, Mr Galdes said that only the vote taken at the end which counted and the opposition MPs had voted against this resolution. Other voting which took place in the committee was irregular and the opposition MPs had made their position clear against these extensions.

Mr Galdes said it was wrong of the government to make comparisons with what took place before 1987 because the situation had changed and Malta now had institutions such as Mepa which were supposed to have taken over decision-making on development planning from ministers. It was also worth recalling that pre-1987, plots cost much less and much of the development at the time went for the building of factories. And if one was to go back, why not recall what used to happen in the 1960s?

It had been claimed that the extension of the development zones would bring stability in house prices. Then a week later interest rates went up, showing where decisions were taken.

Mr Galdes referred to the EU's SEA Directive and said it was ironic that it was the present government which was going against EU directives.

The environment minister had denied that the government had chosen the zones, except some for social purposes. But up to a few months ago the government used to say a flat no to any extensions of the development zones. What had brought about this U-turn? Was it the local council elections?

Why were the schemes being extended when the local plans were not all ready? Why had it taken so long for the plans to be drawn up? Why was the government now intervening directly in development planning more so when the existing zones already included enough areas for future development needs?

Mr Pullicino used to say much about having a sustainable environment. How did that fit into the context of extending the development zones?

Mr Galdes said the opposition had nothing against rectifying injustices but it was against the methods used. How were injustices caused 18 years ago suddenly being rectified after a six-week process? The opposition in its policy document had called for a proper, comprehensive review of the Structure Plan and completion of the local plans but the government should not directly interfere in the development process.

Mr Galdes said there were questions in the way the government's criteria for the extension of the development zones were interpreted. It would appear that some properties which qualified for inclusion had been excluded. Was this a case of the government insisting that the extensions should not go beyond 2.4 per cent? The situation would have been better had the criteria been applied fairly for everyone.

Indeed, who had drawn up the criteria?

Interjecting, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando (PN) asked if the Labour MP was actually in favour or against the extensions.

Mr Galdes said that in the committee the Labour MPs had asked why some zones were excluded when they clearly fell within the criteria, meaning that an injustice was being caused. This did not mean the opposition wanted building everywhere.

He asked what the government's policy for infrastructural development would be in the zones that were being extended. Would zoning be made as part of the local plans or before?

Mr Galdes said no one ever expected that the government would steamroll Mepa in this way. This reflected lack of seriousness and had drawn concern from environmental organisations. The government had ignored Mepa policies, what was said for nearly 20 years and much of the work done on the local plans.

Concluding, Mr Galdes said the government had ignored the state of the environment report it boasted so much about.

Thisprocess, clearly, confirmed the government's U-turns on the environment and it was also an unfair process with many anomalies created and old ones ignored, showing this was a web of corruption.

Joe Brincat, Opposition spokesman for the environment, said he would propose a motion in the House to ensure that persons in authority could be called to account for their actions even after they left office.

The prescriptive period in such cases needed to be removed from the Criminal Code, he said. At present, it was very difficult to find anyone willing to give evidence against his superiors, but facts became known with the passage of time and it should therefore remain possible to bring an action against people who abused of their position.

Dr Brincat said Environment Minister George Pullicino was trying to give the impression that it was Mepa which called for changes to the Structure Plan, but he had indications to the contrary.

What Mepa had been doing was conducting an exercise on the better use of available land, such as by allowing building to grow higher. It was not really credible, Dr Brincat said, that all this exercise came from Mepa.

Had the exercise really been for a social aim with the government asking for permits on certain land to build housing estates, there would have been the benefit of a drop in the cost of land housing many people. Such an argument could have maybe been understood.

But what was the social aim in giving already rich people permits to be able to build on their land? The definition of social aim for him was different from the government's.

How true was it that Mepa had decided the whole procedure? Had Mepa approved or decided the procedure?

The opposition, he said, had been criticising the minister that the local plans were taking too long to be drawn up. Therefore, he was not convinced that the extensions stemmed to a great extent from the local plans.

Dr Brincat also insisted that amendments to the motion should not have been permitted when the motion was debated in the Development Planning Committee. Investments Minister Austin Gatt had rightly pointed out at the beginning of the proceedings that the committee only had the motion before it to debate.

On a point of order Environment Minister George Pullicino said it was clear during the committee meetings that whenever amendments had been moved, it was said that the new documents would be substituting existing ones.

Dr Brincat said the committee had to either approve the motion lock, stock and barrel or not at all. This was the legal position. Without an agreement in committee, all the discussion there was reduced to zero.

Dr Brincat also criticised the way the consultation process was handled, saying much more time would have been allowed to examine 4,000 requests for land to be included in the development zones and 1,400 objections.

Government speakers are being reported separately. Some speakers will be reported tomorrow.