Astrid Vella (May 16) insists that she has withdrawn just one allegation about the Amery Street house permit and not "many". Does this mean that she insists on the veracity of the following false allegations that she was reported to have made in her press conference:

• that the house in Amery Street is scheduled;

• that it is Mepa policy not to allow development in Urban Conservation Areas (UCAs);

• that the issued permit is for a four-storey block of flats;

• that the issued permit was similar to one that was previously refused;

• that I submitted false information in the relative application, on the basis of which the permit was issued?

On the last point, Ms Vella quotes the definition of "fraud" in the Development Planning Act, which I originally piloted in Parliament when I was the responsible Minister. In the US this would be compared to "teaching grandma to suck eggs"! That definition amply proves that there was no fraud in this case: first because not marking two boxes in an application form is not tantamount to submission of false information; and secondly because it is very clear that the permit was not issued on the basis of the alleged lack of information since this was amply taken into account in the processing of the application.

Moreover, Ms Vella's deafening silence on the important and relative facts about the permit that she failed to point out in her press conference speaks volumes.

To err is human. To persist in error, as Ms Vella is doing, is a totally different matter.