Little love was lost between government and opposition when the Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs’ budget was discussed by Parliament on Wednesday evening.

The Labour Party set the tone when – as is happening when every ministry’s budget is discussed – whip Joe Mizzi started discussions by proposing a reduction of the ministry’s budget by €26,000 – €500 a week – to reflect the ministerial pay rise the party opposes.

But the minister, George Pullicino was similarly on the warpath when it was his turn to speak, starting by referring to a violent incident which occurred exactly 25 years ago under Labour in government.

Mr Mizzi – his party’s energy spokesman – focused mostly on utility rates, insisting that successive Nationalist Party governments failed to come up with a plan to ensure a sustainable and affordable supply of water and electricity. He also insisted that the government was using its monopoly on utilities to generate revenue and patch up its finances, and that this was why it would not reduce rates.

He also insisted the government was not doing enough on oil exploration, particularly in areas which were not disputed with other countries.

Environment spokesman Leo Brincat, meanwhile, touched on a number of issues concerning the ministry. He criticised the government for presenting the offshore wind farm at Is-Sikka l-Bajda as a fait accompli even though the necessary studies have not yet been done. He also insisted that government strategies on electric cars and green jobs fell far short of expectations.

Mr Brincat accused the government of shifting the goalposts on waste management, including delaying plans for an incinerator which was originally deemed to be a priority. He also took the ministry to task over 230 people who work at the Sant’Antnin waste treatment plant through a private contractor, pointing out that these covered various jobs including middle-management positions.

Labour MP Charles Buhagiar focused mainly on the construction industry, stating that this was going through a bad phase and that few measures in the budget would help. He did welcome the measure incentivising the restoration of scheduled or UCA residences, but noted that while the government wanted the industry to diversify, away from simply building new structures, it was not providing the necessary encouragement and training opportunities.

He also pointed out that no application for EU funds has been made for the flood relief project, even though the availability of such EU funding has been assured.

Labour MP Gino Cauchi focused on animal welfare – he is his party’s spokesman on the matter – and insisted on the need to revise Malta’s animal welfare legislation. He lamented a number of shortcomings, including a lack of shelter for karozzini horses and how people who adopt a pet from the Animal Welfare Department are not given any information on the pet’s medical history.

Anthony Agius Decelis, meanwhile, focused on agriculture and fishing, lamenting how the government was not giving them due importance. He said that the agriculture department was suffering a brain drain as skilled civil servants were becoming unmotivated and moving elsewhere.

The first government MPs to speak were David Agius and Karl Gouder, and both defended the ministry’s work, pointing out the many small projects which it carried out across the country. Mr Gouder also heaped praise on the 34U programme, stating that it has transformed the country’s environment and also served an educational purpose.

This defence was, unsurprisingly, continued by Philip Mifsud, the ministry’s parliamentary assistant. Mr Mifsud focused particularly on rural affairs, stressing repeatedly the need to help “genuine” farmers as opposed to those who seek to exploit any opportunities available to them. He said that a revision of policies would eventually do just that, quickly distinguishing between genuine farmers and others and helping only the former.

But if the government MPs’ tone was less critical, less aggressive, Mr Pullicino picked up where his opposition counterparts left off. He started his concluding remarks by noting that the day marked the 25th anniversary of the Tal-Barrani incidents, when PN supporters aiming to reach a political activity in Zejtun were blocked and violently resisted by special police and masked men. Many of those on the opposition benches were involved with Labour at the time, the minister added.

After that aside, Mr Pullicino went through a long list of projects – some completed, some ongoing, others on the way – to stress that the ministry was doing its job. After going through his list, Mr Pullicino rhetorically asked Labour leader Joseph Muscat whether he would have stopped any of those projects, given the constant criticism the ministry received.

He then devoted much of the rest of his speaking slot to defend himself against the criticism made by Labour MPs.

On the issue of waste management, Mr Pullicino noted that while Labour promoted the polluter pays principle, it opposed the government whenever it implemented such a policy, including when plastic bags were taxed. He also denied any allegations of irregularities in using private contractors to fill posts at Sant’Antnin, stating that this aimed to provide flexibility at a plant which started a number of operations only recently.

The minister accused Labour of being unaware of certain issues, rhetorically inviting Mr Mizzi to obtain an oil exploration licence if he knew where oil was located and adding that a call for applications for oil exploration licences was ongoing. He also pointed out, in reply to Mr Buhagiar’s criticism, that a formal application for EU funds could only be made when all permits are in hand, and that an informal application has been made already.

On a number of occasions, Mr Pullicino said that delays were inevitable due to issues with permits, tenders and appeals. He asked Labour to point out which process would be cut to allow projects to be done on time.

The minister argued that the government differentiated itself from the opposition because it would not settle for mediocrity, pointing out that Mr Buhagiar had earlier said that the Marsaxlokk square could have been left untouched when the promenade was upgraded.

He defended the ministry’s record on agriculture and fisheries, stating that the ministry provided many opportunities for training and investment – with the assistance of EU funds – and that their take-up confirmed the sectors’ confidence in the authorities.

Mr Pullicino concluded by stating that through its criticism, Labour was unwittingly insulting not the ministry, but its workers, before the sitting was adjourned.