Former opposition leader Alfred Sant said the budget was proof that the government was using the global financial crisis to hide its failure and incompetence. Admittedly, the crisis would have an effect on Malta's economy but this was not an excuse. The government was living a lie with the deficit growing more than three times that planned. For this incompetence the people now have to pay a surcharge of 194 per cent on utility tariffs.

He was speaking yesterday in Parliament during the debate on the votes of the Prime Minister. He said that today, Malta had the same political agenda of the mid-nineties which neither makes social nor economic sense.

The former Labour government had suggested a complete overhaul of state corporations so that they could play an important role in the running of the country through value for money.

Dr Sant said that after 1998, the utility tariffs increased but investment did not. It was true that part of Enemalta's deficit was because of the price of oil but part of it was because of inefficiency, a faulty distribution and billing systems. Production costs continued to rise and nothing concrete was done for the country to ease its dependency on oil.

Labour had aimed to introduce new tariffs which were more just in line with a sensible reform and investment in alternative energy. It had promised to halve the surcharge because it forecast that the price of oil would not continue to rise. What it did not forecast was that the fall was going to be so soon and so much.

Referring to the yard privatisation process, Dr Sant said that this was nothing more than treason. Ten years ago, the Labour government, on the basis of the Appledore Report aimed to bring a total overhaul to enable the yard to face future challenges. When the PN did something it was just to get rid of workers while investments were not made. An agreement was reached with the EU which was not realistic, and losses continued to rise. The government's targets were just illusionary.

The real productive value of the yards was being squandered when these were the best in the Mediterranean. Restructuring was never taken seriously. All the government cared was to please the EU. But during the recent crisis, foreign governments rushed to buy the banks and Malta sold its shipyards.

Malta was contributing more to the EU than receiving and this was proof of gross incompetence. Dr Sant said that Malta needed a new political leadership in the EU which safeguarded Malta's interests.

Gone were the days that bankers are allowed to dictate and curb the welfare state.

The time had come for a holistic plan which strengthened productivity, manufacturing and SMEs. Malta's competitiveness had decreased. The shipyards, tourism and three-star hotels need to be sustained. Even the services sector, which gave signs of revival, has again decreased.

Malta needs a heavy fiscal stimulus and not burdens through the hiving off of subsidies. He forecast that next year, the Prime Minister would go before the House and announce that only between 30 and 40 of the capital funds have been used.

The country needed an accelerated development plan which assisted small enterprises within EU legislation.

The government should not continue basing tourism on low-cost airlines. This strategy had no future. There was the need of a new capital injection, and the development of tourist zones of Marsascala, Buġibba, Valletta and Gozo.

The port regeneration should be taken in earnest because this was fundamental for the maritime industry and tourism.

Turning to education, Dr Sant said that the primary sector must not remain at the bottom rung of the ladder.

The people were disappointed because electoral promises were not kept. The promise of good governance was being ignored. Families and individuals were being spied upon by the government.

Dr Sant claimed that the prime minister had left the Mistra corruption scandal as a festering wound and was trying to rehabilitate the person who perpetrated it. This was an attack on Parliament's integrity.

Karmenu Vella (MLP) said this budget was meant to be a family one, but the economic survey revealed otherwise.

Economic growth had gone down from 3.5 per cent to 3.3 per cent in the first 6 months while inflation increased up by 3.73 per cent in the first nine months. Turnover in the manufacturing sector was down by 7.2 per cent. Exports and imports had gone down by10.3 per cent and 4.7 per cent respectively. Although there was no way to measure competitiveness, there was no doubt it was being eroded.

Mr Vella said that when it came to employment, 20 per cent of those gainfully employed, were actually a part -time employees. Although there had been a 9.6 per cent increase in tourists, earnings had decreased by 0.8 per cent, as per capita spending of each tourist had gone down to €432.

The deficit in Malta had tripled, and the major failing here was the lack of foresight. Taxes, which would increase by €140 million, were not going into investment but to cut down on the national debt, which stood at 62 per cent of the GDP.

The government gave priority to finance over the economy, and did nothing to boost the economy in face of the global financial crisis.

It boasted it did not want to encourage waste by giving back subsidies, but then they did nothing to conserve water or introduce alternative energy.

Concluding, Mr Vella said that the government was successful only in managing to unite the whole of Malta and Gozo against it.

Opposition spokesman on the environment Leo Brincat quoted a Eurobarometer report saying that the highest perception rate of corruption in the issue of building permits, 61 per cent, had been recorded in Malta. He said that people were already feeling that the proposed Mepa reform would not materialise. One NGO had even gone to say that there was a dearth of political will to safeguard the law.

Quoting various reports which gave cause for concern, Mr Brincat said the environment was simply not on the government's agenda. Malta has the highest number of infringement of the EU members.

He called for a balance between safeguarding the environment and sustainable development. Otherwise Malta's eco-deficit would continue to increase. What has happened to the national strategy for sustainable development and whose responsibility was it?

No wonder that the environment was the biggest concern of all Maltese.

Concluding, Mr Brincat appealed to the Prime Minister to bring the opposition's private member's bill on the environment for discussion. The challenge was to have a coordinated effort to safeguard the environment.

Opposition spokesman on the public service Helena Dalli said that the hefty increases in government expenditure on salaries and wages in 2008 could normally have been foreseen at the end of last year.

In the first months of this year, before the elections, the government had been extravagant - and it would have to be the taxpayer to foot the bill. This proved the advantages of the power of incumbency, even though the government claimed that the new intakes were for essential positions. Why had the long-felt need not been seen to before?

The economy was reeling under an acute slowdown, already brought on by fears of life after the new utility tariffs. Families cutting down drastically on expenditure to make ends meet.

There were too many electoral promises which had not been implemented. One of them was the commitment to ensure that boards would be manned after calls for applications. This should have taken on added importance in the knowledge that half the country did not want a Nationalist government. After all, applicants should be chosen for ability, not political colour.

Stefan Buontempo, opposition spokesman for local government, said local councils needed investment in human resources, which were there to improve the quality of life of the community.

He had expected more than a vague mention of €4 million for local councils, especially when one considered that VAT would reduce €720,000 from this sum.

The scheme which exempted anyone investing more than €10,000 in a small local business from income tax for two years was a good initiative. He asked how this would work.

Similarly, who would put into action the scheme of funding 30 per cent of expenses in restoring buildings around Malta and Gozo built around 1950? Did local councils have the funds to do this?

The sum of €50 000 had been allocated to two pilot strategic projects for sustainable development on a local scale. One was the Local Green Challenge award, which awarded €100,000 to the councils which worked on environmental initiatives and the other was the Enterprise Support Award scheme, which awarded €100,000 for incentivising businesses. Mr Buontempo asked how these would be funded and chosen. Would they be funded by committee of the regions of the EU?

Next week, the opposition would be presenting their proposals for reform of the local councils.

He had expected better proposals by the government; such as after school hours use of the school ground, gym, and library. He also expected the provision of photovoltaic panels, something on primary health care, autonomy of local councils, a promise to reduce bureaucracy, and fair treatment of all councils, even if they had a Labour majority.

Opposition spokesman on planning and housing Roderick Galdes said that after the elections people expected a more lenient budget, especially after the Prime Minister had said the people had paid enough taxes. Effectively the government had been working on throwing the country into crisis.

One of the earliest symptoms of trouble had come when a Housing Authority scheme to help first-time home buyers, announced in the 2008 budget, had been curtailed after just a few months because funds had run out. But the government was still branding its 2009 budget as one of responsibility and solidarity.

Mepa had done a record number of over-turnings of board recommendations just before the elections, creating a number of environmental problems. The environmental sector had been broken down into so many sections that it seemed nobody had any direct responsibility for the sector.

One should distinguish between the government's needs and the country's interests. The environment was being made the Cinderella of all sectors. The Prime Minister had even defended decisions taken against the interests of the national environment.

Mr Galdes said the long-awaited announcement of the Mepa reform might come in for criticism, but there was no denying the fact that it was needed. The problems identified years ago when the environment was being merged with Mepa were still there and had not been addressed. Mepa could not concentrate on the economic interests of planning and serve environmental interests at the same time.

The country needed an updated system of planification, concentrating on government policies in a holistic manner and bringing local councils into play. The Prime Minister must give the country direction and appoint accountable persons for the purpose.

The government said the country was facing an energy crisis, while efforts at renewable energy had gone unheeded for years. The people had no clear alternative, and Mepa did not have a policy on the subject.

Malta's structure plan had long expired and had not been reissued in spite of the hard work by Mepa officials. The advent of penthouses made solar water heaters on roofs impracticable, and to cap it all residents in lower-level apartments did not even have access to the roof.

Mr Galdes said some budget proposals seemed good, but it still remained to be seen how they would work.

Concluding, Mr Galdes said that instead of the expected revision of the eco-tax, the government had come up with a proposal to charge the use of plastic bags, simply a fiscal measure.