Labour MP Leo Brincat yesterday described the government’s proposed resolution of the development zones as a “mortal sin” on sustainable development and an exercise in which the government went into direct confrontation with public opinion.

Speaking in parliament yesterday morning, Mr Brincat said that the proposals pointed to a situation which will favour the select few, while the interests of the majority were being ignored.

“We already have enough land for development. The resolution as proposed by the government only presents a situation of “rape” on the environment and sustainable development,” Mr Brincat said.

He pointed out that although Malta’s size and population density can hardly be compared to that of other EU countries, we still have too much empty property in Malta. The total land taken up by empty property is 22 per cent, when the EU average lies at just seven per cent.

Mr Brincat said that this resolution is perverse and reeks with corruption. When Environment and Rural Affairs Minister George Pullicino reacted to this comment and asked for a substantiation of the word “corruption”, Mr Brincat answered that his comment was based on public opinion, which the government was disrespecting.

The Labour MP said that every minister is responsible, since this resolution passed through Cabinet, but the government was simply reacting harshly to criticism. He said that people he spoke to who were traditionally nationalists said that this resolution will be the government’s downfall.

It was ironic to see that Mr Pullicino’s ministry recently organised a national conference on sustainable development, when the government’s proposals do not reflect any form of benefit on sustainable development, Mr Brincat said.

He mentioned other considerations, including the fact that the country will turn into a permanent building site, with negative repercussions on the environment and the tourism industry, which has already reached rock-bottom levels.

Mr Brincat insisted that it is not just the opposition who’s against the government’s proposals, but various other entities within society have expressed their disapproval, including the Chamber of Architects who described the rationalisation exercise as a rampant case of zoning with political motivation.

Mepa has been roped into this illegal and abusive act, will not only have environmental repercussions, but also economic, social and psychological, Mr Brincat stated.

The Labour party was often accused of engaging in a balancing act, but there are certain nationalist MPs who often spoke in favour of the environment and who know that these proposals are wrong, he said.

“Now, will they have the courage to speak up?” Mr Brincat asked and said that this question was also being put forward by many people present at last Wednesday’s demonstration against the rationalisation.

Nationalist MPs Michael Gonzi and Joe Falzon both expressed the fact that nobody ever told them how they should vote. “The concept of a free vote shouldn’t even be discussed,” said Mr Falzon.

While the opposition changed its position on various issues from week to week in order to try to please everyone, the Nationalist party’s politics were based on solid principles. “Three years ago we all took an oath to act in favour of public interest,” Mr Falzon added.

He said that although there were people who accused the Nationalist government of trying to win votes by its rationalisation exercise, it was in fact risking losing votes, since the environment pervaded over the land entering within development zones.

Mr Falzon said that this was the government’s certificate in favour of the environment, since it did not consider whose land was to be included or not, so there might have been people who were traditionally nationalist who did not benefit from the exercise. The Nationalist MP added that it was very difficult for Mepa officials to find a sustainable balance.

Labour MP Charles Buhagiar, on the other hand said that the Mepa completed the rationalisation exercise in a rush and this is clearly demonstrated by the results.

He said that the criteria as presented by the government were too liberal and vague, such that much more land might have also been included. At committee stage, the opposition clearly showed its disapproval, especially since strategic gaps were not being protected.

Rather than protecting the unique character of each individual village, the government was proposing linking the boundaries of certain villages.

These include some land in Attard which in fact forms part of Ta’ Qali. Mr Buhagiar stated that the only part of Ta’ Qali which is a residential area is Il-Hemsija, so it is ridiculous that one of our recreational centres will also be taken up for development.