[WATCH] Opposition ready to delay recess to allow second reading of MEPA demerger bills

PN deputy leader says consultation on the separation of planning and environment at MEPA has been rendered 'useless'

The Opposition is willing to agree to a delay in the summer recess of parliament or an early start in fall if the government agrees to a suspension of the second reading on the MEPA demerger bills until the public consultation is over.

Over and above a consultation that took place in 2014, the government this week announced it would be extending the consultation by four weeks. The problem, the Opposition said, is that parliament is already in the second reading of the two bills, which render the consultation on the separation of planning and environment authority "useless".

"The process is flawed: either we're not having a serious discussion in parliament or we're not having a serious consultation," PN deputy leader Mario de Marco said.

Yesterday the Opposition forced a marathon session of parliament after it demanded that a division be called after each vote that needed to be taken on the SPED - the strategic plan for the environment and development which replaces the local plan.

Addressing a press conference, de Marco, David Agius, Marthese Portelli and Ryan Callus said the government had relegated the environment to the "second division" arguing that while promising consultation, the end result showed it was riding roughshod over civil society organisations.

"As the eNGOs themselves said, the SPED is a step backwards and a step towards environmental degradation. Although we voted in favour to a number of amendments, we could not vote yes to a number of others. The government's proposals were a pick and choose exercise and it doesn't see the environment as something to protect but an obstacle for its land use," they said.

Portelli said the SPED was flawed in itself because it had not been prepared according to the provisions set out in the law. She lambasted the use of generic terms in the SPED which give rise to uncertainty on their interpretation.

Callus welcomed a government vote in favour of a motion put forward by the Opposition forcing parliament to always discuss changes to ODZ lands.

The Nationalist Party said that, at committee stage, it had put forward over 20 amendments, most of which reflected the suggestions of NGOs. Callus argued that the government had come forward with its proposals an hour before the committee meeting, "which didn't give us enough time to study them".

"For this reason we abstained," he said.

Asked whether the government had improved the SPED over the original document, the PN said that the NGOs' statements "spoke for themselves".