Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil has once again called on Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon, responsible for the Land Department, to resign following revelations over the expropriation of a palace in Old Mint Street, Valletta, by Mark Gafferena, who made €1.65 million in a fast-track deal.

Anyone involved in this case at the department should be removed, Dr Busuttil said.

Charging Labour with being close to construction contractors and people like Mr Gaffarena, he launched a scathing attack, saying he could not believe how the parliamentary secretary could go to the House and speak about amendments to the Government Land Act.

Dr Falzon was behaving as if nothing had happened, when the entire country was talking about this scandal “which smacked of institutionalised corruption”.

He should be man enough to shoulder full responsibility. There was a web of wrongdoings taking place with the blessings of the government. Irregularities were taking place all the time and there was nothing to stop them.

Why did Gafferena hold such power over the government? What was the link between Dr Falzon and Mr Gafferena, between the Prime Minister and Mr Gafferena? Why were these things happening? Why did the Prime Minister retain the Land Department in his portfolio?

The government never needed half this property; it was Mr Gaffarena who had bought it for the sole purpose of receiving compensation for it.

Dr Busuttil said he was not saying Dr Falzon profited personally, but it had all happened under his ministry and he knew about it, had signed for it, and his responsibility for it continued to grow.

“What are you still doing here?” Dr Busuttil asked, addressing Dr Falzon directly.

Dr Falzon raised a point of order, saying he was doing what the PN had not done during its tenure. He asked Dr Busuttil not to lie about him when he said that he had never spoken about the matter in the House.

Dr Busuttil said Speaker Anġlu Farrugia was right when in an interview before the election he had said he did not feel comfortable with big businessmen and contractors getting too close to the Labour Party since it triggered fears of corruption.

The government is making its repayments and the Gaffarena case is just the tip of the iceberg

The government was making its repayments and the Gaffarena case was just the tip of the iceberg. This was institutionalised corruption which was greatly undermining the people’s trust in politicians.

Dr Falzon assured the House that, in the Gaffarena case, the procedure set by his predecessor Jason Azzopardi was followed and he had always requested staff at the ministry to abide by the law and normal practices, as vouched by the minutes in the relevant file.

He called on the Opposition to be careful about inciting rumours and allegations. He confirmed he had signed the necessary approval for the deal based on the evaluations prepared by two architects, Scotto and Spiteri.

Neither architect had links to the PL. The latter had previously been chosen by Dr Azzopardi as a person of trust and the latter’s mother had contested the local council election with the PN.

This transparency was contrary to the way things had been done in the past. In 2009 a lawyer on behalf of Lowenbrau Company had asked the government to move forward with the contract, and in less than 24 hours it had been signed. Compensation of €5 million was contracted on the eve of the 2013 general election.

He could not understand how these two instances and many more did not portray the previous government as having bad intentions while for the Opposition, the Gaffarena contract, which took its course and was finalised in six months, reeked of corruption.

Referring to the allegations that he had personal links with Gaffarena, he said it was shameful that the Leader of the Opposition gave examples of holidays taken 13 years ago. This had no bearing on the issue.

There was no political interference in this case, contrary to what happened when a front garden valued was rented out at much less than its value.

Former Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi had been copied into e-mails relating to such matters. Did this not amount to political interference?