Joseph Muscat yesterday attacked the government over its lack of reaction to the opposition's criticism on the Environment and Development Planning Bill.

Speaking in Parliament during the second reading of the Bill, the Leader of the Opposition accused the government of simply continuing to shift goalposts. The opposition had not heard of any reaction of agreement from the government side, or why if it was disagreeing. Why was the government disagreeing with the separation of planning and environment entities? This was an amendment of substance.

The government seemed to want to hide something from Parliament. What the House had in front of it was purely an enabling law, with the government later filling in the voids.

Earlier, Dr Muscat said the government side had only half endorsed the Mepa reform proposals, and only few really wanted to be associated with them.

He made it clear that when it mentioned Mepa, the opposition meant the political management and the policies of the authority, certainly not in any personal way addressed at individuals or the workforce.

The government could blame no other quarters for Mepa's current situation. The reform was not clear about how applications that prima facie appeared similar, would be handled.

Small applications were handled in such a way that the applicant felt estranged to the system, with board members simply mumbling among themselves. On the World Consumer's Day the notion of transparency should be evident in all quarters, including Mepa and how decisions were being taken.

Dr Muscat said the so-called reform had been bandied about since before the 2008 general election, when the Prime Minister had seen that Mepa was very unpopular. He had claimed that he would solve the problem, but in actual fact his failure was evident to all.

He had promised a reform of the authority even in the 2003 PN leadership contest. The report he had requested from the Management Efficiency Unit had only partially been implemented. And there was hardly any change in what was being said today.

The government purported not to interfere with Mepa, but there were several instances of proof to the contrary, specifically in the handling of applications.

The permissible height of buildings in Malta and Gozo had been decided contrary to advice. There had been interference even in the drawing up of local plans. The Structure Plan had been abandoned in spite of the resources wasted on it. The Prime Minister had ordered Mepa to extend the rationalisation exercise, now considered as the greatest scandal under Dr Gonzi. His assistant on the Mepa board had been instrumental in the exercise.

Dr Muscat said a fundamental problem in this so-called second reform was the lack of vision. All that had been heard was more of a technical exercise in the creation of new structures than where the government really wanted to go in planning. What vision did the government have on the Malta of 20 to 30 years from now? It was to be hoped that the reform would not have a shelf-life of just a few years.

The government had finished up in the situation where Dr Gonzi admitted that trivial matters were being taken to extremes, and maintained that large institutions should be housed in existent buildings. He had called for practicality in such large projects, but practicality in trivial matters had been thrown out of the window.

Dr Muscat said he could not understand how the government was spending €80 million on a personal whim. Dr Gonzi had tried to portray himself as the champion of the environment and people had believed him, but now they knew the truth. He had offloaded from Mepa Carmel Cacopardo, who certainly was not Labour and was well known for his dedication to the job. His vacant place had still not been filled in spite of its organisational importance.

There had been an impressive number of scandals, such as at Ramla l-Ħamra where government representatives had met the developer to find ways of speeding up the application. Just a week before the 2008 general election the entire board of Mepa had had to resign. The Prime Minister had instituted another board before the election, and many applicants had been called to be told of the approval of their long-standing applications. It would not have been a catastrophe if the committee had not been set up then, but there were electional exigencies. What had been the urgency?

What about the government's interference in other projects affecting thousands of people and hundreds of families, including the Sant' Antnin waste recycling project? Other cases included that of Victor Scerri at Baħrija that showed the government's insensitivity, or the loss of a file with the auditor not understanding how the permit could have been issued without the file. Had Mepa informed the police of the loss of the file?

Another case had been the Belvedere of Qala, refused before the general election and approved after the European Parliament elections.

Dr Muscat asked what solutions the so-called second reform was offering for all such instances. Which scandals would not repeat themselves? What assurance could the government offer that there would be no similar occurrences before the next election?

The main reason for the reform seemed to be a statistical exercise, showing there were less pending applications because they were being decided more swiftly, just to show Mepa off as more efficient - simply window dressing.

The government had sought to assure the people that the €52 million given to bus owners would not impact on government finances. Neither would €450 million for Enemalta. Something similar was now expected on Mepa.

When all of Europe was adopting a system of spatial planning, which was not easy, why was the government not accepting the concept? What happened to a place must be in line with what happened around it. The opposition was expecting an answer.

Another proposal concerned the concept of a standing committee, led by the opposition, to scrutinise Mepa to ensure that things were being done correctly. Why should there not be a system of scrutinising the competencies and plans of people appointed to certain posts? They should also declare their assets to Parliament.

Dr Muscat said Labour's vision was clear. Things should be taken a step further, opening doors wide, and Mepa accountability would mean that political appointees would have to answer the committee's questions.

The opposition had also called on the government to give it copies of the proposed legal notices. The opposition would not approve any carte blanche.

This was similar to what had happened on gambling, with things moving forward only after the opposition had seen the legal notices that the government had in mind. What type of legal notices did the government want to issue to substantiate the Mepa reform? The opposition would not go to the committee stage without knowing what it was going in for.

The removal of the €21 million subvention to Mepa meant that its expenses must come from the people. Did the government intend to announce tariffs only after the committee stage, simply by legal notice or any other means? How could this be called serious?

Concluding, Dr Muscat said the opposition was being very responsible in its criticism, but the people deserved better.