Opposition spokesman on the environment Leo Brincat said government policy on the environment clearly showed it was more intent on collecting taxes than being environmentally friendly.

Speaking during the debate in second reading of the Budgetary Measures Implementation Act (Amendment) Bill, Mr Brincat accused the government of ignoring environment groups on eco taxes and asked it to declare what it would be doing with revenue derived from eco taxes.

The Għadira road project would reveal the government did not really have the environment at heart.

Over the years Mepa had been politically impotent in its enforcement. Environmental groups had asked the government to set up an environment fund and to invest more on enforcement measures which were lacking.

Mr Brincat said that former nationalist minister Michael Falzon had declared that the last eight months showed that nothing happened to ensure that changes at Mepa would come true. He agreed with Mr Falzon that the main problem at Mepa was one of adopting the wrong culture. Its method and attitude had not changed over the years.

Environment groups criticised the government for failing to allocate funds to preserve nature sites, to introduce protected zones at sea, to improve landfills and implement the 2006 campaign on reducing and reusing waste products.

Mr Brincat said the government should have imposed less tax on the least damaging plastic bags. The government was inconsistent when it imposed an 18 per cent VAT on large plastic bottles but no VAT on small ones.

He also criticised the government for failing to distinguish between eco-friendly and other white goods and imposing the same rate of eco tax. He asked why the government failed to reintroduce rebates on energy-saving appliances which were stopped a few months ago.

Nature Trust had requested the government to publish annual reports giving details on how revenue collected from the eco tax were spent. He said such reports should be annexed to the budget documents so that they could be scrutinised by Parliament. He added that other environmentalists found that government eco initiatives were contradictory.

He criticised the government for taking measures which made hybrid cars more costly than others. He asked whether the government's intention was to benefit car importers by encouraging more cars on the road, when world trends were to the contrary.

Mr Brincat again called on the government to put his Bill on climate change on Parliament's agenda. Other countries were already planning policies up to 2020 to adopt climate change measures while the Maltese government had not yet introduced a climate change Bill.

The majority of members of the consultative committee were not very conversant with EU directives. What guarantees were there that what the committee recommended would be implemented? The committee's report, which should have been published by the end of October, was not yet concluded. The Committee complained about the lack of data. He said this was no surprise when EU authorities repeatedly complained to Malta on providing essential data on time.

He called on the Prime Minister to present to Parliament the projections on which the government's environmental policies and measures were based. He again appealed to Dr Gonzi to appoint an inter-ministerial committee to synergise the issue of climate change with the environmental sector, keeping in mind sustainable development.

Who was responsible for the implementation of the plan for sustainable development?

Concluding, Mr Brincat pointed out that his criticism was not meant to give the impression that if the Opposition were in government there would be miracles.

Labour would be serious in its policies and would rely on the opinions of experts. It would also publish all available statistics and studies involving NGOs, as well as fulfilling their promises.

Environment and sustainable development had become part of the Labour Party statute but the truth was that these were also the principles that they believed in and were based on.

Opposition spokesman on industry Carmelo Abela said that three things influenced the budget: the deficit, the utility bills and the global economic crisis.

The deficit, which Dr Gonzi had predicted when he was Finance Minister, had trebled - from an estimated €68 million to more than €200 million.

This could not be blamed on the global slowdown. The government had not done any particular investment but it was spending for political convenience. As the people seemed to be inclined towards the Labour Party in the run up to the election, the government had felt the need to spend to win votes it had lost - the power of incumbency.

It could well be that when coming up with the budget for 2008, the government had not done its homework properly, ending up having to ask Parliament to approve supplementary expenditures, to make up for this. They had asked for an additional expense of €283 million for 2008, a large part of which went to personal emoluments. He asked for a plausible explanation, as the reason for this was not known.

The Prime Minister had just announced the long-awaited City Gate and the Opera House projects. However, he did not go into the merits of what these buildings would be used for. To finance these projects the people would be paying between €15 million and €20 million per year. However, there had been no mention of this expenditure in the budget.

The water and electricity subsidies, which the government had boasted of so much before the election, now became something the government no longer believed in. It would give the people vouchers, which they could then cash when they went to pay the bills. This was humiliating for many people.

At a time when oil prices were rising, the government kept the surcharge at the same rate, to avoid losing votes. But afterwards, it had no qualms about raising the surcharge. Now it wanted to impose these increasingly-expensive bills at a time when oil prices are plummeting.

The government also said that part of the deficit was because of the retirement packages it had to offer to yard workers.

But was not the government aware that by the end of 2008 it could not continue to offer them subsidies?

Turning to utility bills, Mr Abela said that the government never said that it was raising the tariffs but that it was carrying out a reform. This was no reform at all and it was happening when oil prices were going down.

This was not the right time to introduce such utility rates because they provoked uncertainty. The government did not consult anyone when such rates should have been agreed upon.

The government's imposition was sending a negative message to investors, present and future, and this was dangerous. It was only because the workers' unions united and collectively took a stand, and for the Labour Party demonstration, that the government re-opened the negotiations. The country's interest was to defend employment and competitiveness.

The international financial situation led to the government taking - or omitting - certain decisions. The banks' conservative business attitude helped in absorbing the initial shock but now certain factories were taking austerity measures. The government should have put more money in people's pockets and not introduce taxes.

Mr Abela said that he was still without any answer to the number of questions he had posed during his criticism to the budget debate. It was not enough for the Minister of Finance to read the budget speech. He should have said how successful the previous budget was.

The budget introduces five new schemes for industry, which were good and necessary. However, the government allocated only €20 million spread on five years.

The scheme for international competiveness aims to help Maltese enterprises find new overseas markets. But were €500,000 enough? This target had also been set during the 2008 budget and he had expected the minister to give a progress report.

The same could be said for the grants for research and development, where Malta is at the lower end of the EU members' list. This scheme had been mentioned in the last eight budgets. Can someone say how such schemes worked during the years?

Last year, the government had also said that it was introducing a Technology Venture Fund and a Venture Capital Fund. In the 2005 budget, the government had voted Lm900,000 for such a fund.

He had asked the minister whether this fund had been set up. The minister had said that €900,000 had been allocated to the fund, but this was still not operational. Things remained on paper.

The Ta' Qali Crafts Village was a 16-year-old tragic comedy. The government had now discarded this project.

The government announced that it was appointing a commission to delve into the expenses which the public sector was imposing on the private sector. But then, a few minutes later into the budget speech, the minister announced an increase in the excise duty on fuel and the licences of commercial vehicles. Mr Abela said that the commission ought to take it upon itself to investigate these rates in the first place.

There were 96 or 12 per cent of the factories which were not operational. The government would do well to see into this situation and allocate the space to somebody else.

Concluding, Mr Abela said the people were feeling the need of a new direction. Malta had arrived at a stage where the people are far better than the government which was leading them.

Nationalist MP Fredrick Azzopardi said that the government had reaffirmed its vision of a dynamic economy based on skills and excellence with the aim of ensuring sustainable development.

Successive nationalist governments had changed the economy from one controlled by the government to an open economy based on private enterprise.

He said that one of the elements of a sustainable economy was the need to increase efficiency while investing in cleaner technologies and renewable energy. He added that sustainable development was built on equity eradicating poverty and social inequality. Education based on knowledge, skills and values was paramount.

Turing to Malta's dependency on oil, Mr Azzopardi said that increased oil prices led to an increase in inflation as higher costs were passed on to consumers. Despite these challenges, the government had trust in the country's ability to face the challenges ahead.

The key to success of Nationalist governments had been to update its policies without changing its principles.

He claimed that the main problems regarding the environment were due to consumption patterns and a high population density, among others. Sustainable development aimed to reduce the negative impact created by waste.

He said that through, the provision of basic services in the infrastructure, telecommunication and information technology, the government had repeatedly shown that it delivered what it promised.

The number of gainfully-occupied also increased at a time when the public sector was shrinking and the private sector was being reformed.

Malta had a competitive advantage in various sectors including tourism.

He called on the government to take specific initiatives for Gozo adding that it was the government's intention to explore on the possibility of alternative and renewable programmes for Gozo. He said the government reduced income tax for the third consecutive year.

Edwin Vassallo (PN) said a country could not be sustainable if families were not. The budget benefited everyone.

It was important to admit that poverty still existed in Malta, not only financial poverty but also a social poverty. People are poor in moral terms, direction and scope in life. Some students who were extremely talented had no direction in life and this was a moral deficit.

Others knew what they wanted, and these were lucky.

Mr Vassallo said it was important to avoid a consumerist society.

The budget called upon everyone to be responsible and personally sustainable. The budget put cash into people's pockets, without basing it around their spending.

Despite a global recession, the government still tried to pump money into people's pockets, through the creation of projects, employment and infrastructural changes. These all gave Malta value added.

The MFSA regulations had saved Malta's economy from a collapse. The government led by Dr Gonzi, who made his decisions even against the advice of many such as that to adopt the euro, had helped give Malta healthy finances.

Malta's economy was much sounder than other countries that had always proved to be more competitive than Malta.

Claims that the government was failing in education were false as 70 per cent of the students today moved on to a higher education institution. Concluding, Mr Vassallo said the government afforded equal opportunities to everyone.