Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi told Parliament yesterday that there were five strong reasons why the government would not be taking on board the opposition's proposals on the Mepa reform, saying some made no sense at all and others were vague.
Speaking during the debate in second reading of the Environment and Development Planning Bill, Dr Gonzi said the opposition's proposal for the setting up of two separate entities - one for development and one for the environment - was unacceptable because two entities competing with each other necessitated setting up a third authority. If adopted, this would be a gross mistake.
Dr Gonzi said these were serious matters and could not be dealt with superficially. It was better to build on the experience gained with these two entities working together. They could not be separated from each other; one would become the shadow of the other.
If the opposition's proposal was accepted, it would also create more bureaucracy, duplication of resources even by experts and additional expenses. They would create more confusion among applicants and would eliminate the current one-stop-shop principle.
Dr Gonzi said the Bill was the result of a two-year consultation process which included a national conference and meetings with constituted bodies, interested groups, NGOs and Mepa experts. The opposition had opted not to participate in this process and made three proposals which had already been discussed and were being consolidated in the Bill.
The Prime Minister said he appreciated the opposition's contribution and its genuine interest in wanting to give the country an authority that was transparent, efficient and consistent in its powers on enforcement.
Another reason why the opposition's proposals could not be accepted was that the country had agreed on sustainable development. National structures could not have two separate entities.
This did not mean that the current system was perfect. There was the need to invest in more resources so that environmental entities such as the heritage planning unit and the heritage advisory committee would be more effective. The planning and environmental entities would become more complimentary with experts in development, the environment and heritage preparing the necessary policies.
The Prime Minister said the opposition's proposal on spatial planning was vague and no explanation had been given. If this meant the National Strategic Plan, the structure and the local plans which considered the impact on land, health, transport, business and the economy, then there was agreement on both sides. The only difference was in the use of terminology. This was the structure plan at its best.
The government was introducing an innovative measure when it was proposing to give Parliament a voice in considering policies before the executive arrived at a decision.
The existing committee, which was discussing the structure plan, would have its terms of reference extended to include the remit of considering Mepa policies on the ODZ, the compliance certificate and the local plans. Deputies from both sides could give their input and could request expert advice. The committee would give its opinion, but it would be the government's responsibility to decide.
Dr Gonzi disagreed with the opposition's proposal that the committee's terms of reference be further extended and that it would intervene after the executive would have taken its decisions. This was the first time that a parliamentary committee would be giving its decisions before the executive.
The Bill was also implementing an electoral promise that persons on government boards would be appointed through calls for applications. This would be applied in the appointment of members on Mepa boards, with some of them working full time.
The Prime Minister said that the Bill would give Malta an authority which was efficient, responsive in a reasonable span of time, and adopting a more transparent, more consistent and less bureaucratic system. In the previous legislature, the government had already proposed a Bill giving more enforcement powers to Mepa, and this in agreement with the NGOs.
Concluding, Dr Gonzi appealed to the opposition to review its position and follow the direction given by the national conference, which aimed at strengthening Mepa to achieve sustainable development.