Proceedings less than transparent

The gamble was that the huge increase in land available for building decreed by the Gonzi administration would soon be forgotten, as people started to focus on tax cuts and similar matters. Two weeks after the government forced its measures through Parliament, there are grounds to believe that the contrary will happen. I, for one, have been getting information not available in past weeks, about how decisions were taken to extend this or that area for new building. No doubt, such information is filtering to other people.

While the public controversy went on, I repeatedly asked the government to publish the names of citizens and companies owning plots of land that were being included in the schemes opened for new building. The whole exercise was placed under the Cabinet imprint. Who would be the beneficiaries of the massive adjustments in land development permits? The Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment promised to release the information. They did not honour their promise.

After enquiring at the Environment Minister's secretariat about the matter, I was given a dossier on the very day that the plenary debate started in Parliament on the government's proposals. This came nowhere near my request. Now, had the whole matter related to a public project, where the government in the people's name would have been carrying an initiative defined in the national interest, arguably, such a lack of information could have been acceptable. But this was certainly not in the case when plots of land overnight became available for private development. Land which prior to the change would have cost tens of thousands of liri, would suddenly reach a price in the hundreds of thousands of liri. People having prior knowledge regarding what was cooking were well placed to make a killing.

Remember that the planning authorities had proclaimed there was enough land already allocated for building to last another two decades at least. The Minister for the Environment - the same man who drove through the extension of building zones - wrote less than three years ago that there was enough land available for building: that we need to preserve agricultural land, and that it would be best to concentrate on regeneration projects for old urban centres.

The protesters in the streets who claimed that speculators were, as usual, being given very good pickings, got it right. There is the well known story about a government backbencher who together with his family sold their plot of land not so long ago, believing it could not be built up, only to find now that, yes sir, it will qualify for a building permit.

This is not the same as saying that genuine cases did not exist where adjustments to land development boundaries would have been justifiable. The government mentioned cases of injustices committed by the PN back in 1988, when it froze or reversed building permits that had already been issued. Such cases could have been addressed on a case by case basis, through the setting up of an independent commission led by a retired judge, which would have made recommendations to the government and to Parliament. That would have been a fairer, more transparent way of proceeding.

At present, justifiable or not, all cases falling under the new land permit measures are tarred with the same brush: that of speculation and abusive policy change. Despite PN propaganda, the opposition's stand on the matter was consistently against the proposals. We let civil society take front stage in criticising what was going on, in order to avoid polarising the issue on party lines. When NGOs suggested there should be a free vote in Parliament on the government's proposals, Labour's parliamentary group decided to go along this road, clearing the ground for the PN to do the same. Some hope.

Then, legalistic diversions were mounted in the parliamentary committee that "vetted" the government's proposals. They were used by the PN machine to project Labour as wobbly on the whole issue. Some good souls swallowed the line. It is unclear whether this happened because they accepted PN propaganda at face value or because they feel uncomfortable - given their deep-seated party allegiance - just to only criticise the administration; preferably, they wished to "balance" such an action with criticisms directed at the opposition. We all have our own ways of facing up to unpalatable truths...

The PN in government, disconnected as it is from the wishes of the people, has carried out a scandalous exercise in land speculation aimed at satisfying some vested interests which back it. Genuine people who genuinely support the PN were and remain troubled, even if they wish not to give any kind of comfort (as they see it), to Labour.

The truth also remains that Labour's opposition to the arbitrary extension of building zones was consistent. Nor will the matter stop here. We will continue to insist that light be lit over proceedings that have been less than transparent. Once that happens, either under this administration or the one following it, rest assured that further debate will continue about the extension of building zones that the Gonzi administration has seen fit to force through Parliament, without providing reasonable justification.