Opposition deputy leader George Vella was in a huff recently over the lack of transparency of the Solemar Hotel development handling. Rather than lack of transparency, one could complain of glaring opacity in the matter.

The official plea is that the authority had had no choice but to sanction the development of the hotel because of a decision taken by a Planning Authority appeals board. Dr Vella is demanding a detailed explanation. An inquiry would not seem to be so out of place, to allay fears of corruption in an august public body, and to restore any lost faith in its workings.

It does not take much to come to the conclusion that owners of boathouses are treated in one fashion, owners of big concerns that employ large numbers, and especially backed by huge bank accounts, are treated in another way. The risible fine that has been imposed, is not enough, as the boathouse owners were not offered the same alternative - and neither should they - nor was it likely that they would have got away with an offer to pay a fine.

It may very well be that Dr Vella is exaggerating matters - which, in the existing political context, is not surprising - and that no real corruption exists. But it is not necessary to have certainty of corruption to launch an inquiry. And there have been more than enough funny bits and pieces added on from time to time, about the Solemar Hotel development.

If the fault is small let there be a small punishment (indeed, why exaggerate?), if big however, let heads roll. Nothing less would be expected.

Dr Vella claims that the PA Appeals Board had given the go-ahead only for an outline development permit, and that provided for far fewer than 202 rooms. An outline permit did not mean a developer could go ahead and build.

Why, therefore, had the PA still allowed the building works to go on? This was a project which everybody could see. Why wasn`t it stopped? And the hotel lies not so far from illegally built boathouses.

Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg said the government property involved in the building of the hotel had been taken over before 1998. The PA recently regularised the situation with regard to the illegal development after having imposed tough conditions, including, for the first time ever, the imposition of a contribution of Lm200,000.

The same tough position would be taken with regard to the title of the land in question. The land would be transferred according to law and following a call for tenders. The price would be established according to commercial rates, especially now that it enjoyed a building permit.

On the PA`s decision to withraw its appeal, Dr Borg said he did not tell the authority`s board what to do. It was logical, however, that once the building permit had been issued under certain conditions, it made no sense to continue the appeal - which could have turned either way.

All the same, it does look as if the Solemar has got away with goings-on for which the ordinary person would have been flattened. No wonder Dr Vella is calling for a detailed explanation from the government and, if needs be, a parliamentary inquiry.

What exactly has happened? That is what everybody wants to know. Should any real cigars materialise behind the bad whiff, then they have to be stomped.