MP accuses opposition of 'Humpty Dumpty' attitude

Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando yesterday accused the opposition of sitting on the wall Humpty Dumpty style in the debate on the building development zones.

In remarks made amid occasional loud interruptions in Parliament, Dr Pullicino Orlando defended the government's exercise. He said that while the opposition claimed it was against the government's plans to limitedly extend the zones, Labour MP Roderick Galdes had complained earlier in the sitting that several people's properties had unjustifiably been left out of the extensions.

Dr Pullicino Orlando said this review of the development zones was needed so as to remedy injustices and anomalies caused when the temporary schemes were drawn up.

It was understandable that environmental NGOs were objecting to further areas being given up for development. The government, was performing a delicate balancing act but, clearly, it could not perpetuate injustices.

It was also a fact that many people were complaining that their plots were being left out of the extensions. But had all requests for inclusion been accepted, the extensions would have grown by 10 sq km whereas the zones would in fact only grow by 1.4 sq km. This, therefore, was far from being the vote catching exercise some people had made it out to be.

Dr Pullicino Orlando accused the opposition of crocodile tears, saying its representatives had participated in manifestations with genuine environmental NGOs and then its MPs suggesting various other extensions to the development zones in the House committee.

Interjecting on a point of order, Mr Galdes said the opposition had not called for further additions.

Mr Pullicino Orlando said all those who heard Mr Galdes, who had spoken immediately before him, had heard him complain that several pockets were left out. Which way was the opposition going? Mr Galdes had started speaking in one direction and continued on another.

The opposition was arguing that the extensions were not needed because there was ample supply of property to meet demand. Now everybody knew that property was the most secure investment. Some people kept property for their children. So what was the opposition saying? Was it advocating the requisition of vacant properties like it did in the past?

Turning to the opposition's decision to grant a free vote to its MPs, Mr Pullicino Orlando said this was a gimmick.

He personally as a Nationalist MP was never told how to vote and his vote therefore had always been free. After all, in the House he was a representative of the people, not the party.

The same could not be said for Labour MPs who had their political careers destroyed after the way they voted. One could see what had happened to Louis Buhagiar (interruptions) or Dom Mintoff. (more interruptions and calls for order by the Speaker). MP Joe Abela once failed to be re-elected after having opened his mouth in a way which was not exactly in line with Labour policies and Marie-Louise Coleiro recently also faced problems over the pensions debate.

With Mr Galdes having spoken in favour of more sites being included in the development zones, he should vote in favour of this motion (more interruptions).

Continuing, Pullicino Orlando said he did not need anyone's permission to vote in one way or another (further appeals for calm from the Speaker).

The opposition, however, was sitting on the wall, Humpty Dumpty style, in an effort to please everybody. But it would end up in the same way as the nursery rhyme character. The Maltese people were not stupid and would question what the opposition really represented.

Mr Pullicino Orlando said he could not understand how the government was being accused of hurrying when these schemes had been pending for 18 years. His complaint was that it had taken too long.

And the government had now proved that it had not been rushing the process to meet the deadline of the EU's SEA Directive, since that deadline expired two days ago. Indeed the SEA audit team had explained that this process did not fall within the SEA directive.

It was also claimed that the government did not want to publish a list of the owners of the lands included in the development zones. But a hard copy had now been personally handed to Dr Sant.

Clearly this was just another case, similar to the pensions reform, where the government was doing its duty in the common interest. Genuine criticism made by well-meaning organisations and individuals should be treated as such but the opposition's criticism was only aimed at trying to net votes. Labour was again showing itself to be a party of gimmick and pantomimes.

The debate was opened in the morning by Rural Affairs Minister George Pullicino who insisted yesterday that the new zones being given up for development were in almost all cases, chosen by Mepa in terms of strict criteria laid down by the government.

He also revealed that a commission appointed by the Sant government and headed by Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici had recommended a greater area for development than the extensions currently before the House.

Mr Pullicino was opening the debate in Parliament on a motion for a partial revision of the Structure Plan which will see an extension of some of the development zones.

Mr Pullicino gave a short overview of the process, explaining that the new government in 1987 had inherited a situation where huge tracts of land became development zones at the stroke of a minister's pen. The country had been losing 200 hectares of agricultural land every year between 1971 and 1986 - the equivalent of 34 Siggiewis or two Siggiewis every year.

It was a government priority to rectify this situation and temporary development boundaries were therefore drawn up to put a stop to this haemorrhage. It was acknowledged that this process was made in haste and some anomalies or injustices were caused and it was repeatedly stressed that such boundaries were therefore temporary and the process would be continued with the drafting of the local plans. The Planning Authority (now Mepa) was set up in 1992 and embarked on the drawing up of the plans. Although much good work was done, the way the local plans were drawn up did not follow a uniform pattern and there were several contradictions.

The government, therefore, decided to lay down clear criteria which if asked Mepa to interpret when it revised the temporary development zones. Mindful that this was a sensitive issue, the government was very careful. For example, to avoid problems of interpretation of what constituted a "pocket" the government said a pocket could not exceed 17,000 square metres.

Therefore, the extensions which the House was now being asked to approve were suggested by Mepa itself in terms of its local plans and its interpretation of the government's criteria, except where otherwise indicated as requested by the government for social purposes when no harm to the environment was caused.

The government had nothing to hide, indeed, the information on who made submissions to have his land included in the development zones could be found on the Mepa website. One could also see cross references with the relevant maps now before the House.

Mr Pullicino said that of the proposed extensions, areas equivalent to one per cent of the existing development zones were proposed by Mepa in the local plans and 1.3 per cent on the basis of the government's criteria. No one had objected when Mepa made its recommendations when the local plans were drawn up, not even in the case of the Tal-Papa site at Birzebbuga.

In all, the total extensions would amount to 2.3 per cent of the existing development zones. That included sites owned by the government and areas which would be taken up by roads and public areas.

It was therefore unfair to criticise the government that this exercise was irrational.

It was also worth pointing out that 20 per cent of the proposed extensions were already built up with permits, including the two villas indicated by The Sunday Times last Sunday as well as Mtarfa, parts of Manikata and Hal-Farrug, among others.

However, in the parliamentary Planning Development Committee which discussed these extensions last week, the opposition's MPs verbally requested the inclusion of a site at Salina, but it was found that development there was not covered by a permit and the government turned down the request.

Mr Pullicino said that since 1993, when the drawing up of the local plans started, thousands of people had asked for their land to be included in the development zones, including MPs and officials of the Labour Party. The only ones which were accepted were those which had fallen within the restricted criteria the government had given Mepa and certainly not on the basis of who the land owners were. This was far from having been a vote catching exercise, as some quarters had said.

It was significant that in the six-week consultation process preceding this debate, no one had criticised the government's criteria. During that six-week period alone, a total of 5,374 submissions were received of which 3,913 were requests for inclusion and 1,439 were objections.

The opposition had adopted a strange attitude during the four sittings of the Development Planning Committee. MPs Charles Buhagiar and Roderick Galdes even moved amendments to include some new areas and the first 16 maps - including tal-Papa at Birzebbuga - were approved unanimously, with the opposition taking part in the vote. The opposition even agreed on the Tal-Papa site at Birzebbuga. Interjecting on a point of order, Mr Galdes said Mr Pullicino was not correct and the opposition had insisted that the proceedings of the committee were ultra vires.

Mr Pullicino said the minutes and the transcript proved what he had said.

But incidentally, it was worth pointing out that the site at Tal-Papa was government land and therefore no speculation was involved. Its inclusion was first proposed by the Planning Authority way back in 1995 and the opposition representative on the authority, George Vella, had not objected. And this land was part of an even bigger area which was indicated for development by a commission appointed by then Prime Minister Alfred Sant and headed by Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici in 1987. There were no complaints then that this was an agricultural site. Indeed, Mr Pullicino said, he would table documents from the Agriculture Department showing that the area that the present government was moving for development was not agricultural.

It was also worth pointing out that the Mifsud Bonnici commission had proposed a bigger extension of the development zones than the House had before it now. That commission's report was never published by the Labour government, whose officials were not criticising the government of lacking transparency.

Mr Pullicino said the opposition MPs' attitude in the Development Planning Committee suddenly changed after the first two sittings. They stopped voting and it appeared that somebody was holding their hands. And now they were saying they would have a free vote. Clearly this was nothing more than a gimmick. Nonetheless, while not taking part in the votes, the opposition MPs spoke about including new sites in several localities such as Siggiewi, Xaghjra, Msida and Zebbug as well as the exclusion of others.

Referring to some arguments by NGOs, Mr Pullicino said the government acknowledged, on page one of its criteria document, that Malta already had enough development zones to last well into the future. That was why the criteria were very restrictive. But one could not perpetuate injustices and anomalies caused when the temporary schemes were drawn up. It would also have been irresponsible not to conclude a process which started in 1987 when the temporary zones were drawn. To leave this process open would have been very dangerous for the environment, particularly if, in future, some government was more open to the way zones were given up for development.

Indeed, opposition spokesmen too had acknowledged that a limited revision was needed. The opposition leader had argued that the process conducted by the government constituted a web of corruption, then he had not produced a single case to back up his accusation.

Dr Sant had also claimed that a Labour government would have solved the anomalies and injustices case by case. What exactly did this mean? What criteria would he have used? Could this have been people's identity? What public consultation would Labour have carried out in a case by case process? Didn't he know that all changes to the structure plan had to come before Parliament?

Clearly, what existed in the opposition was opportunism, contradictions and confusion, Mr Pullicino said.

Alternattiva Demokratika too, in its document appeared confused and had not done its homework well, indicating sites which actually were not included in the government's proposals.

Mr Pullicino said the government had been given legal advice that this process did not fall within the EU's SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment) directive as it was clearly a continuation of the process started in 1993 when the drawing of the local plans started.

The minister observed that Bishop Nikol Cauchi had been among those who recognised that these extensions would remedy an injustice caused to several couples who bought plots which had been earmarked for development, only to be excluded when the temporary zones were drawn. The Gozo Curia had been among those who wrote to propose the inclusion of several sites. The GRTU, the BICC and the Chamber of Architects too had recognised the need for this process.

The Church's environment commission recognised the dilemma facing the government, but proposed no solutions.

Concluding, Mr Pullicino said he understood the anger felt by the many people whose land was not being included in the development zones, but this had to be a limited adjustment based on strict criteria aimed only at addressing injustices and anomalies created in the past, without harming the environment. The government could not renounce its right and duty to protect the common good.

Nationalist MP Michael Asciak recalled the system under which building permits used to be issued before 1987, saying that what the PN government had inherited and acted against was institutionalised corruption.

The Structure Plan was the beginning of a process for a proper, transparent development process and these extensions, which were concluding this process, would rationalise the local plans and iron out anomalies.

The opposition's disagreement, he said, was another gimmick because no one had actually criticised the criteria used by the government.

Dr Asciak observed that no site of ecological or rural importance was being given up for development.

Yesterday morning's debate got off to a stormy start with the opposition complaining that procedures were not being followed correctly, a claim which the government and the Speaker rejected.

Opposition remarks are being reported separately.