Quote: "We want to see something on the old opera house site which is in harmony with the rest of the buildings in the city - something which is balanced and which takes account of the scale of the site and the small size of Valletta. While Paris, London and Berlin can absorb daring, modern architectural challenges to the traditional structures around them, Valletta can not.

"Other things being equal, we would therefore prefer to re-build the opera house with an outer fabric which is compatible with the traditional style and character of Valletta.

"As to Freedom Square, which is an intrinsic part of the Opera House site, we want to see the current unbalanced and characterless square restored, with buildings on one side and a public recreational space at its core - a fitting and dignified ante-room to the restored Opera House site and the rest of Valletta."

Fine words, though I cannot claim to be their author. The above paragraphs form part of a speech delivered by Martin Scicluna, at the time executive president of Din l-Art Ħelwa.

One may be forgiven for thinking that Mr Scicluna was referring to the present Valletta Rehabilitation Project, for the words seem as relevant today as they were when they featured in Din l-Art Ħelwa's Vigilo magazine of October 2004.

Valletta is no stranger to controversy; the size of the new city was fiercely debated in 1565. Contrary to popular perception that Valletta was always intended to be laid out on a grid pattern, the Order's engineer, Francesco Laparelli favoured one wide main street flanked by winding streets that would provide shelter in winter and shade in summer.

However, when criticism of his plans threatened his project, Laparelli silenced dissent by "inviting all those who had better sugges-tions to make to submit them in writing accompanied by appropriate designs". We are not suggesting that this should be done in the present debate, but it is striking that during the autocratic regime of the Order, public participation should have been encouraged, while our democratic administrators have not held serious discussion on the present Piano project, nor been ready to take public opinion into consideration.

Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar (FAA) has repeated ad nauseaum that it is in favour of the remodelling of the City Gate area and that it is not trying to stop the project. Like the Valletta Alive Foundation, it has reservations over certain aspects of the plans, however it cannot accept the trampling of one the basic tenets that we aspired to achieve in voting for entry into the EU, the right of public consultation. The Aarhus Convention, which Malta signed, obliges our government to go beyond consultation to public participation, stating:

"Each Party shall ensure that in the decision due account is taken of the outcome of the public participation." Is that tenet being honoured? So far the answer is a resounding "No".

FAA's other serious concern is also the fact that the legally binding Structure Plan states: "Parliament and the Ministries will concentrate in the palaces and auberges of Valletta."

Much of the discussion surrounding the Valletta Rehabilitation plans is subjective. The style of the proposed theatre and gate have in the past provoked debate from many quarters: "Din l-Art Ħelwa was - and remains - against the Renzo Piano design for the entrance to Valletta which took scant account of the fact that the Gate, as the principal landward approach to Valletta, should convey the massiveness and solidity of this great fortified city." An opinion that many would consider also applies to Mr Piano's new project.

However the above clause of the Structure Plan is clear and indisputable. It makes as much sense now as it did in 1990. Valletta has many empty or under-used structures that can accommodate Parliament, like the Auberge de Baviére and the Conference Centre for which site Richard England had already drawn up plans for conversion to a parliament. Unlike Freedom Square, both of these options have the important advantage of ease of access and security with minimal construction disruption and costs. Moreover, they will lead to the regeneration of lower Valletta, not just the over-developed upper quarter, where commerce and tourism will be greatly impacted by years of disruption on Freedom Square.

The above legal violations are what led FAA to include the Valletta Regeneration Plans in the Legality Now rally, along with issues of planning abuse, destruction of heritage, air pollution, illegal groundwater extraction and illegal hunting and trapping. We urge all those who feel that Malta's laws should be upheld, first and foremost by our government, to join us at the rally, tomorrow at 10 a.m. at City Gate, Valletta.