Environment Minister Leo Brincat denied the government was steamrolling over everybody to have the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development approved before the summer recess.

All the government was proposing, he said, was that the House approve the second reading of the relevant Bills providing for the Mepa demerger without going into the committee stage.

The government had given NGOs and the public a month to submit suggestions on this plan, and it would only be after these submissions that SPED would go before the House Committee for the Consideration of Bills, just like any other law.

Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil was being sparse with the truth on everything, including the allegations of corruption which were not based on any evidence, unlike the two clear cases of corruption that took place under the previous government, on which there was concrete evidence.

When in 2013, the government proposed to separate Mepa, it was not going against the grain because most of the NGOs had agreed. It was only the Opposition and one NGO that had disagreed. Now Dr Busuttil was saying he was completely against it, when the Bill had not even started being debated.

It was no use quoting Pope Francis, or for Dr Busuttil to make apologies about previous administrations. What the Opposition should have done was give back all the ODZ land grabbed under the PN administration.

Mr Brincat said he always believed in open dialogue with environmentalists, and he hoped that this would continue even with social partners.

SPED was written in a way that would ensure regulations would be respected, but he did not agree that it needed to be redrafted from scratch. He did not recall any other time when a planning document was discussed at such length, and he was willing to take on board any suggestions, even if they might have a hidden political agenda.

The separation of Mepa would work if there was political willingness. Ideally there should not be any building outside development zones, or only as a last resort, but the Church and the PN should be honest about what they had done in the past.

The public wanted to be reassured that there would be continuous monitoring to ensure a balance between development and the environment, he said, adding that the government would be monitoring the situation like a hawk. He did not agree that local plans should come out before SPED.

While he did not agree that construction should stop, further building needed to respect spatial planning and open spaces. SPED needed to be a dynamic document which would be under continuous scrutiny. New encroachments in the countryside should be avoided, and every use of land and sea should be sustainable.

Sped was already subjected to a Strategic Environment Assessment but no one had mentioned this.