House outrage at ‘insulting’ Akamas stance by ministers

TEMPERS flared yesterday during a House Environment Committee meeting to discuss government plans for the Akamas peninsula.

The confrontation was sparked by the refusal of ministers to brief the committee on the government’s position on the issue, arguing that discussion on the Akamas would begin before the cabinet today.

Five ministers, members of a special ministerial committee tasked with studying the matter, had been called before the committee, although only three turned up.

The chair of the committee, Agriculture Minister Costas Themistocleous, told deputies he could not brief them on the ministerial committee’s positions before they were heard during the cabinet meeting today.

“The cabinet should be allowed to take its decisions and then the House should judge them, enforcing the right of scrutiny provided by the constitution,” Themistocleous said.

The Ministers of Finance and Communications, Takis Klerides and Averoff Neophytou, had more or less the same opinion, an attitude that infuriated deputies.

Committee Chairman George Lillikas said the ministers’ attitude was insulting. He claimed that there were financial interests behind the issue and that the government was trying to bring a fait accompli before the House.

Lillikas warned the ministers that he would suggest to the plenum of the House that it reject all funds concerning any work in the Akamas that might burden the environment.

DISY deputy George Tasou said it was a “waste of time” since the ministers did not want to inform the deputies on the essence of the matter, and he asked that the session be terminated.

A clearly irritated Green deputy George Perdikis urged his colleagues to take “insulting to the legislature” ministerial behaviour under serious consideration.

The government decided in 1999 to allow “mild and controlled development” of the Akamas peninsula, one of the last virgin territories on the island.

At the time the decision was viewed with great suspicion by environmentalists and other concerned groups who claim there were business interests behind the decision.