Environment Minister denies trying to pass MEPA demerger 'by stealth'

Environment Minister Leo Brincat hit out at critics who have accused the government of trying to pass a law to demerge MEPA quickly and by stealth.

“The government already consulted on the original proposal and many recommendations were taken on board,” Brincat told eNGO representatives at an urgently-called parliamentary environment and planning committee.

“We had never considered steamrolling over the Parliamentary committee. Were we to proceed by stealth, we’d have been acting against the spirit that we want this law to reflect.”

He shrugged off the fact that the second reading on the three Bills will commence in Parliament on Wednesday, arguing that recommendations from NGOs will be taken on board during the third reading, that will be held after Parliament breaks for its summer recess.

However, shadow environment minister Marthese Portelli said that NGOs were given less than 24 hours notice to come up with proposals for the wordy Bills.

“Not even a weekend whould have been enough time for them to get through to them," she said. "We believe that we should first hear what the NGOs have to say in this committee before discussing it in the plenary session."

Din l-Art Helwa council member Petra Caruana Dingli agreed with Portelli that she wasn’t given enough time to read the Bills and come up with a proposal.

“I only received the e-mail at 8:50pm last night and only read it this morning,” she admitted.  

She quoted the Aarhus Convention, of which Malta is a signatory, as saying that “each party should allow for public consultation at an appropriate stage on rules that could have an effective impact on the environment”.

She added that the Aarhus Convention requires four weeks of consultation, to which Michael Falzon agreed to extend consultation by a week.

The meeting was at one point interrupted by Malta Developers’ Association president Sandro Chetcuti who criticised the government for not inviting them to the committee meeting.

Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Arnold Cassola warned that the MEPA fragmentation will strengthen the developers’ lobby and weaken the environment.

He criticised the current and previous government for “appointing puppets and poodles at MEPA, who are there to take orders from the Prime Minister rather than to protect the environment.”

He suggested that MEPA merge with the Malta Resources Authority and that a specific parliamentary committee should be set up to monitor MEPA.

AD deputy chairperson Carmel Cacopardo questioned whether the new law will properly regulate the construction industry.

He said that a parliamentary committee should scutinize the appointment of the regulator of the construction industry, so as to “lower the possibility of the appointment of people whose sole qualifications are their political affiliations”.

He warned that the Bill indicates that the director of the environment of the new Environment Authority can be replaced for a decision-making process with a politically-appointed person at any given notice.

Opposition MP Ryan Callus said that MPs shouldn’t debate the Bills in their second reading before NGOs are given enough time to submit their feedback.

“What is the point of this public consultation exercise otherwise?” he questioned

The committee was chaired by Labour whip Godfrey Farrugia, rather than its usual chairperson – Farrugia’s partner and fellow Labour MP Marlene Farrugia, an outspoken critic of the government’s environmental track record.  

Farrugia retorted that the “true work” on the law occurs in the third reading,  

The government on Friday published three new Bills through which MEPA will be split into two separate planning and environment authorities.

Around 40 NGOs only received an invitation yesterday to participate in today’s parliamentary committee, a move described by Flimkien ghall-Ambjent Ahjar as “lip service in the pretence of consultation” and by Front Harsien ODZ as an “insult to civil society”.

The government plans to close the second reading of the Bill before Parliament breaks for its summer recess, and to proceed with the third and final reading when Parliament reconvenes.

Front hits out at ‘absolutist’ government

Front Harsien ODZ spokesperson David Pisani repeated his movement’s accusation of trying to “steamroll” over civil society. At this point, Falzon retorted that there was a four-week consultation period back in 2014 and that it “wasn’t the government’s problem” if the Front wasn’t in existence back then.

However, Marthese Portelli insisted that the demerger drafts weren’t available at the time of the 2014 consultation.

“The Bills are so long and a proper analysis would have also involved comparing them with the existent laws,” Pisani said, calling on the government to extend the consultation period over the summer.

Front Harsien ODZ spokesperson Monqiue Agius said that the government isn’t really “a government that listens” and called on Parliament to postpone its debate until after the NGOs are given enough time to analyze the Bills.

“Who is an absolutist? Is it the government who is consulting with the public today with NGOs who were hardly given any time to come up with proper propels, before discussing it in Parliament in tomorrow? Or is it us who are trying to protect the environment?”

Opposition calls for independent analysis on new Bills

Marthese Potelli also called for the government to commission an independent analysis on the new Bills and on how they will differ from the current one.

She said that if the government doesn’t postpone the plenary session set for tomorrow, then she will simply have to speak her own personal opinion “when the people elected me to represent them”.  

“If we truly want to send out a proper message of what politicians should represent, then we should listen to the people’s opinions on a Bill before debating it in Parliament,” she said. “Why does Leo Brincat have such a problem with postponing the debate?”

Brincat referred to the 2014 consultation period, pointing out that the government had taken most of the recommendations on board.

“The Opposition have had the documents since 16 June and had ample time to analyze them,” he said. “Also, in the second reading, MPs are only supposed to debate the broad outline of laws.”

Sandro Chetcuti interrupts, says demerger ‘unbalanced against developers’

The meeting was at one point interrupted by Malta Developers’ Association president Sandro Chetcuti who stood up and criticised the government for not inviting them to the committee meeting, despite them being an NGO. Farrugia ordered him to sit down, warning him that the committee was being streamed live.

He was later called in front of the MPs, where he said that the document is unbalanced against developers.

“While I am in favour of strengthening the environment, this environment authority will supersede everything else,” he warned.

Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar president Astird Vella warned that holding the debate in Parliament tomorrow will go against an EU directive.

She warned that the appointment of officials shouldn’t be up to the minister. “This has long been a problem, most recently a few weeks ago, when we found out that MEPA’s chief executive was ignoring his remits to obey orders from above in the Zonqor case.

She said that MEPA cannot be truly reformed if politicians don’t take a step back in appointments.

“Any MEPA reform should only strengthen the Environment Directorate, which has always been subject to the Planning Directorate. With this law, it has been demoted even further to an external consultant that doesn’t even need to be consulted on everything.”

Opposition MP Ryan Callus said that debates are only “alive” when MPs would have previously consulted with the public.

“We risk missing a golden opportunity,” he warned. “The decisions we take today will impact the future for a long time to come, both for environmentalists and developers. If we get it wrong, we will get it wrong for many years to come. Why is the government so against postponing the debate for four weeks? Four weeks won’t cost anything.”

Labour MP Charles Buhagiar reiterated that the second reading involves a “general” and “wide” discussion and that the nitty-gritty legal details get hashed out during the third reading at committee stage.

“Many people mix up planning with the construction industry,” he said in response to Cacopardo. “MEPA controls planning, while the BRO controls construction.

Brincat said that all all main eNGOs had declared themselves in favour of a MEPA merger in principle in the run-up to the 2013 general election.

“Yes, the devil is in the detail, but the detail will be discussed in committee stage,” he said.

The Opposition suggested that the meeting be adjourned and that the four-week consultation answer to the committee.

Farrugia said that the committee is supposed to discuss policies and not laws, unless there was agreement from government and Opposition MPs.

Callus slammed the public consultation exercise as a “show” and Portelli accused the government of only pretending to be one that listens, but the government rejected- with Brincat insisting that he was acting according to parliamentary procedure.