The House of Representatives yesterday voted 33-28 in favour of a government motion that will extend the building development zones. MPs voted along party lines, despite a free vote having been granted by the opposition to its members.
The vote was taken following some heated exchanges between the government and the opposition after Opposition Leader Alfred Sant said there were reports that many thousands of liri had been paid by some land owners for their properties in Mosta to be included in the development zones and that there were reports among contractors that Environment Minister George Pullicino and his collaborators had travelled briefly to Sicily where the plans of the development zones were finalised.
Mr Pullicino challenged Dr Sant to repeat his claims outside the House for legal action to be taken. He said he had travelled to Sicily for a day with his policy coordinator and friend following the death of his mother, but the finalisation of the plans had nothing to do with the trip.
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said Dr Sant's "unsubstantiated mud-slinging" was deeply hurtful to people who had worked hard to ensure that this process was fair for everyone.
In his speech Dr Sant said that as soon as the proposed extensions to the development zones were announced, he had declared that this constituted a web of corruption. He would now add that this was a web of institutional corruption.
This was very different from the new style of doing politics which the Prime Minister had promised. These were ancient methods of doing favours, relying on friends of friends and grabbing land. This was a throwback to the speculation of the 1960s evidenced in Mellieha, Sta Maria Estate, Bugibba and Paceville, to mention a few.
Some had claimed in the debate that to get a building permit in the 1980s one needed to pay a 25 per cent commission. Accusations had been made against a minister, now deceased, who had his good and bad points but who could not now defend himself. But if these commissions really existed, how was it that the matter did not end up in court?
What was worth pointing out was that it was since 1987, under the present government, that property prices had gone through the roof and profit from speculation soared into millions of liri.
Dr Sant said that what this government was now proposing at the stroke of a pen would turn into millionaires people who had bought or acquired property cheaply because it was in a green area. This was truly speculation.
It was no wonder that the people were in deep shock. The decisions and procedures leading to this debate were hidden, confused and lacking transparency. The Cabinet had ignored the procedures which the PN government itself had introduced for building development. It had decided overnight which sites should be given up for development after having for years boasted that it had instilled seriousness in the development planning process, even if that was not true in any case. Even Archbishop Mercieca had shown a warning light over what was being done in Mepa, but the government had continued to defend what it said was Mepa's seriousness. Then suddenly the procedures it boasted of were forgotten and the Cabinet moved in with a long list of properties which, at a stroke were given up for development. The names of the real, current owners of these properties had remained hidden. Was it any wonder that the people were scandalised? If the manipulation in Mepa had annoyed the Archbishop, how much more obscene was this manoeuvring by the Cabinet?
This was political hypocrisy of the first order. Mepa and the government had long been saying that Malta had more than enough land for building development and Malta also had an oversupply of building stock.
Just three years ago, Mr Pullicino told a newspaper that there was no need to eat further into agricultural land and what was needed was for better use to be made of the areas within the development zones and the housing stock, which was enough for the next 20 years. And now this same minister was piloting this infamous motion.
What had brought about this change of heart overnight? Clearly the PN was thinking of its friends. The claim that this exercise was meant to remedy the injustices created when the development boundaries were drawn up in 1988 - 18 years ago and 18 months before the next election - was merely a camouflage for a wider exercise to help friends of friends.
If injustices were committed it was right that the people involved should be compensated. But there were other ways how to go about it. The government could have set up a tribunal headed by a senior judge, a senior retired architect and a government official who would have considered those cases and recommended compensation to the government and Parliament in a transparent manner. That was how a Labour government would have acted.
The way the government was acting reflected hypocrisy and opportunism and Mepa had been reduced to a puppet on a string. It was true that he had in the past spoken of the need for fast track procedures where the Cabinet took decisions so that national projects could move forward quickly. But he never imagined that this procedure would be used so that some individuals could have their properties included in the development zones.
Dr Sant said he could not see how anyone could ever view this government as having pro-environment credentials after what was taking place now and the disasters caused by the Chambray development, the building alongside Fort St Angelo, the proposal for a landfill near Hagar Qim, the building of Busietta Gardens, the Floriana car park, the power station at Delimara and the planned golf course at Ghajn Tuffieha.
The problem was that the government's decisions had nothing to do with the national interest and all to do with partisan politics.
Dr Sant hit out at the government for not having published a complete list of the current owners of the land which would be included in the development zones. The list that he had been given was incomplete and based on old data, with several properties having changed hands.
A close analysis still had to be made, but land belonging to a minister and his family was not included in the list. Important information was missing with regard to land at Mosta. Indeed, he had received information that certain people among those who did not appear in the list had to pay thousands of liri to the PN to get where they wanted. He could not keep back from saying such things when others had spoken of 25 per cent commissions paid in the 1980s for building permits.
He also had information, going round contractors, of a short trip to Sicily made by Mr Pullicino and his closest collaborators where the final decisions on the development zones were to have been taken.
Rising on a point of order, Mr Pullicino said he was totally denying what Dr Sant was saying and he was challenging Dr Sant to repeat his comments outside the House. He had never gone to Sicily with contractors to finalise such plans.
Dr Sant said he had not said that Mr Pullicino had gone to Sicily with contractors. What was the minister denying?
Mr Pullicino said he had gone to Sicily for a day with his policy coordinator and friend shortly after his mother died, but he knew of nothing else.
Concluding, Dr Sant underlined the opposition's decision to grant its members a free vote and said the choice facing the House was over corruption, arrogance, incompetence, votes and the national interest. The matter, however, would not rest here and the opposition would pursue it further.
Winding up, Dr Gonzi said the House had just heard a typical speech by Dr Sant, who had used parliamentary privilege to sling mud without substantiating anything.
He had also contradicted himself, saying that the list of names he received on Monday still had to be analysed after having, from day one, said this exercise was a web of corruption when he did not have the names.
It was true that he wanted a new style of doing politics in Malta, but that also depended on how the opposition acted.
Dr Gonzi said the implication of what Dr Sant had declared and not substantiated was that Mr Pullicino had gone to Sicily with certain people to take the final decisions on the plans, thus benefiting someone.
This, Dr Gonzi said, was being categorically denied.
The government had been very careful in the final part of this exercise and had hurried it up as much as possible and information was kept under a tight rein to ensure that no one tried to profit from it.
Thus the final Cabinet decision was followed with the presentation of the motion by Mr Pullicino on the same day to avoid leakage of information to benefit anybody.
It was therefore shameful that through this mud-slinging, the debate had been reduced to this level. Those allegations were hurtful, given everybody's efforts to do the right thing and the fact that the government had to explain to some 4,000 disappointed people why their land could not be included in the development zones for environmental reasons.
Indeed, this tactic was not new. Dr Sant had used it in 1996 but after much mud-slinging, had been forced to swallow it in the 22 months of Labour government.
Dr Gonzi spoke on the reasons behind this motion, arguing that in a situation where development had to be sustainable, one could not stop all land development, and all development came at a price, and one therefore had to delicately balance what the economy needed with the need to preserve the environment.
Contrary to what Dr Sant had said about the government having taken decisions overnight, this exercise had its roots in 1988 when the temporary building development areas were drawn. That was followed in 1993 when the local plans started being drawn up, reviewing the development zones. The Marsaxlokk/ Birzebbuga local plan was completed in 1995 and the Grand Harbour local plan in 2002 while work on the others had continued. At the time there were no complaints about what was being decided. No one complained of corruption. Opposition MPs were among those who insisted on particular plots being included in the development zones.
But even though the first plan was completed 11 years ago, people were still complaining that they did not know how their property in Marsaxlokk or Birzebbuga could be used.
The choice facing the government was either to let matters sort themselves out or to finally conclude the process which was described as temporary way back in 1988.
It was decided that the criteria used for the local plans would be adopted nationally. But since there were issues which the government was uncomfortable with, such as areas which shouldn't have been included for development, the Cabinet, after consulting experts, established general, objective criteria to be applied across the board.
These criteria were published, and throughout the debate no one had criticised them. This meant that the criteria were acceptable.
In this exercise the government was acknowledging anomalies created when the boundaries were drawn in 1988 and moving to rectify them, where it could.
Dr Sant had mentioned the Archbishop, whose views were always considered by the government. So too were the views of Bishop Emeritus Nikol Cauchi, who had acknowledged that the anomalies needed to be rectified.
Among them were people who had bought land covered by building permits who suddenly found out in 1988 that their land was no longer in a development zone.
Dr Gonzi observed that one of the arguments made by the opposition was that the development zones did not need to be extended because the current development zones were large enough, and there was also a large stock of vacant dwellings.
This argument was troubling. Was Labour saying that property owners should be forced to sell their vacant properties? Was it saying that current housing problems should be solved by resorting to requisitioning or expropriation, as used to happen under the Labour government?
Dr Sant, after all, was party president for some of that time. (interruptions) Labour had never unequivocally declared it would not resort to requisitioning in the future, Dr Gonzi said.
Many of the vacant properties were summer residences or one-bedroom tourist flats. Was Labour saying young couples should be happy to move into these properties?
Dr Gonzi said the government was concerned over the way property prices had risen over the past two years and the financial burdens young couples had to shoulder as they started married life. Finding a solution was not easy in a situation where supply of property was limited and inadequate. He, however, knew of many families who, as a result of this motion, would be able to use their properties to house members of their families. Could anyone having a social conscience stop them from doing so, as long as development of those sites did not harm the environment?
The opposition spoke of barons benefiting from these extensions, but many small families were actually involved.
This could, possibly, also be a step to cool the property market, stopping the upward push of property prices. Once this possibility existed, could he, in his conscience, step back from taking it?
What one needed to do was to weigh the social impact with the impact on the environment. The government was doing this, but the opposition was interested only in mud-slinging.
Dr Gonzi said the government's environmental credentials, even in this issue, were proved by the fact that over the past few years, there had been a steep increase in the percentage of redevelopment of properties in village cores compared to new buildings.
In the period between 1971 and 1986 Malta used to lose some 200 hectares of agricultural land annually to building development. That had dropped to 80 hectares.
The opposition in this debate had shown itself to be opportunistic and confused. Its representatives on the Planning Development Committee had voted in favour of 16 of the maps which the House had before it now. If their free vote was truly free, would they vote for the motion now? The Labour MPs had proposed both the exclusion and the inclusion of properties in the development zones, the balance being an addition of 60,000 square metres of new land. (interruptions) So was this helping friends of friends? Was this a web of corruption?
If there were MPs, such as architects, on both sides of the House who had an interest, they should declare it, Dr Gonzi said.
Dr Gonzi said he understood the concerns expressed by the environmental organisations and their views had been noted. He was now appealing to them to understand that the country needed always to strike a balance which would also yield an economic benefit that could be translated into further investment in the environment.
The government, Dr Gonzi concluded, remained committed to bringing about a quality leap in all sectors of the environment.
The motion was then approved after a division with all MPs being asked to declare their votes. At one time Labour MP Joe Debono Grech protested that the Nationalist MPs were not being heard.
There was also some laughter, however, especially when Parliamentary Secretary Francis Agius came to vote, with some recalling his lapsus in 1998. Three MPs were away - Labour MPs Chris Cardona and Karmenu Vella and Nationalist MP Mario de Marco.