It is a real pity that the government seems to be going ahead with the idea of having certain parts of localities having their own local council that will act within an already existing council.

As you rightly pointed out in your editorial (Further division, TMID, 21 January), the government is effectively discriminating between one part of a locality and another.

The zones that will have their mini-council will have a much bigger advantage over residents who are living in areas that are cut off from the centre, and yet do not have a mini-council to represent them at local level.

The stubbornness with which the parliamentary secretariat for local councils is pushing ahead with this so-called “reform” leads me to think that there is much more than meets the eye.

First of all, why were areas so small included in the list of the first 16 zones when other bigger zones such as Bugibba and Manikata were left out? It is crazy, to say the least, to have a mini-council for a road or two in Pieta while ignoring the plight of the thousands of residents in the Bugibba area. Why hasn’t the St Paul’s Bay council complained about this?

Of course, this is not to say that I agree with the setting up of these councils. I am totally against them because I believe they will spread division, rather than unity, and will result in higher costs to the taxpayer.

But, if the government persists with this idea, it should explain why these 16 zones were selected over others which have bigger needs.

The parliamentary secretary has so far declined to say how these areas were selected. His silence, to me, is rather fishy.

Paul Camilleri

Mosta