The deputy leader of the Opposition, Mario de Marco, said this evening environment NGOs were being taken for a ride by the government, which had told them today that it would allow a four-week consultation period on the Mepa demerger, but the debate on the relevant laws would still in Parliament start tomorrow.
“We will not be accomplices in this,” Dr de Marco said in Parliament.
It did not make sense for the government to argue that at this stage Parliament would only discuss the principles of the Bill and not the actual text. Couldn't the NGOs also have views on the principles of the proposed changes?
The House Business committee had not met, there was no agreement for the debate to be held tomorrow, and therefore he asked the Speaker whether the debate could go ahead.
The Speaker, Anglu Farrugia, said it was up to the government to regulate the business of the House.
Government whip Godfrey Farrugia denied that environment NGOs were being taken for a ride.
An exception was made today when a House committee held a special meeting to discuss a legislative item which was before the House, he said.
BACK TO LORRY SANT DAYS
Opposition leader Simon Busuttil, who spoke later during the debate on the new SPED law to replace the Structure Plan, said this was a government of appearances and bluff, but no substance.
It was a disgrace, he said, that the government which promised to give a voice to e-NGOs had instead called them for a single meeting on the Mepa demerger, and gave them less than 24 hours to prepare for it.
The government was rushing the SPED law through parliament and wanted to do likewise regarding the Mepa demerger. Why the rush?
The demerger would mean that the environment and environmental protection would no longer be linked to planning.
The impact on the country would be major, now and in the future.
The environment would be relegated to an authority which would be piratically only a consultant.
Instead of strengthening what were meant to be independent institutions, the government was weakening them by ensuring that it made all appointments to them.
Similarly, he said, the new SPED law would take the country 25 years back, the Lorry Sant days. It was deliberately vaguely written and handed all decision-making back to the government.
These laws, Dr Busuttil said, would make it easier for the government to involve itself in scandals and plots as were the cases involving the Premiere Cafe’, Australia House and Gaffarena. The common link in all of these was that they stemmed from Castille.
Dr Busuttil said the Opposition was calling for the SPED to be sent back to Mepa for a revamp.
Dr Busuttil regretted that under the PN governments, mistakes were made in the past. It was for this reason that it wanted new, stronger legislation, to avoid a repetition of those mistakes, intentional or otherwise.
Failing that, it should be ensured that any changes to development zones would need to be approved by parliament, as was the case in recent years. He hoped that at least the two sides could agree on this.
Environment Minister Leo Brincat said it was not the government’s intention to have the Bills on the Mepa demerger approved through all stages before the House rose for the summer recess. The plan was for the debate at committee stage to be held later.
Furthermore, the consultation period had been extended to four weeks and the environment NGOs therefore had enough time to make their submissions.
The debate in parliament starting tomorrow would only be on second reading. Furthermore, it was worth recalling that when the Mepa demerger was first proposed, nearly all the environment NGOs were in favour in principle.
Mr Brincat said the Opposition could hardly speak of scandals, given the proven corruption under its time. The same applied to building outside development areas.
It was also worth recalling that this government had promised that major economic projects would be subject to social impact assessments apart from the usual assessments and studies.
SPED, he said, had to be a dynamic document which was kept under constant review. It needed to be ensured that there was no encroachment in the countryside but this was a development plan where development had to be sustainable.