It baffles me to note how pathetic Minister George Pullicino can be when reacting to our climate change Bill proposal.
His complaints are that our bill lacks concrete proposals or proposed actions, that my main aim is to alienate the public from the fact that Labour does not want to propose anything on the matter, and that I proposed a committee of climate change experts three months after Minister Pullicino had already set one up. He also asked whether we shall publish specific emissions reduction targets during the parliamentary debate.
One moment the minister committed himself by declaring that neither he nor the government have the intention of delaying the debate on my Bill, by promising it to be held "at the first available and opportune date", then he expressed hope that it will be a fruitful debate and finally concluded that I am jumping the gun by proposing legislation at this stage.
May I kindly refer the minister anew to the contents of my private members' Bill.
The Bill was never intended to commit the government on specifics at this stage but to commit government to agree in principle to legislate on the matter.
Rather than drawing up a Bill unilaterally based on the recommendations of a partially representative consultative committee appointed solely by the minister, we propose a Bill drawn up by a new committee of experts which should include representation of the major environmental stakeholders rather than a single minister-appointed nominee who according to many NGOs I met does not even formally form part of an NGO. And even so, why was he arbitrarily chosen rather than leaving it up to the NGOs themselves to appoint a number of key specialists in the field?
The action plans will be based on the workings of a truly representative, all-embracing committee of experts from the NGO sector and other stakeholders and it will be up to them to set the benchmarks rather than for us to determine arbitrarily as politicians how Malta can effectively reach its emissions reduction targets.
This is the work of environmental experts and scientists rather than just parliamentarians or politicians.
In retrospect one can easily tell that what is worrying the minister is not the private members' Bill itself but the fact that once the committee of experts from right across the whole spectrum, appointed jointly by government and opposition, will conclude its work, the government will be committed to present Parliament with an annual progress report, thus adding a parliamentary dimension not only to climate change per se but also to its sectoral impact on the key socio-economic areas of the Maltese islands.
I rest my case. Now that the minister has accepted in principle to debate the Bill in Parliament I expect him to put all the pressure necessary on the Leader of the House to ensure that such a Bill is debated without further undue delay.
After his unsuccessful foray as minister responsible for the Environment and Mepa, which are now both in the hands of the Prime Minister, Mr Puillicino has little to show in terms of political transparency and accountability.
This could be the core issue behind why he is trying to avoid committing himself and his government to a specific date as to when to hold the climate change private members' Bill debate. Primarily because of the transparency and accountability components of such a measure.