While Parliamentary Secretary for Planning Michael Falzon highlighted that feedback from environmental NGOs and the opposition led to significant amendments to the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development, the opposition remains unconvinced about the document.
However, shadow minister Marthese Portelli expressed a degree of cautious optimism, hoping that there would be further reforms of the policy before it is implemented, and a similar sentiment was expressed by government MP Marlene Farrugia, who chairs Parliament's environment committee and who has been a frequent government critic on environmental matters.
Dr Falzon repeatedly highlighted that the SPED was meant to replace a document that was approved 23 years ago, and that was meant to be revised 16 years ago.
He also emphasised that no one voted against the document during discussions in committee - PN MPs abstained from voting - although this later led Dr Portelli to clarify the opposition's position.
Dr Portelli stressed that the suggestions made by environmental NGOs were only adopted in part, as the revised wording introduced by the government made a huge difference.
Nevertheless, she pointed out, the amendments were an improvement, albeit a minimal one.
She said that the opposition's decision to abstain from voting in committee was a recognition that a step forward had happened, but insisted that she was hoping that the document would be improved further, and its inadequacies addressed, as a result of ongoing debate.
Dr Portelli highlighted that environmental NGOs have all come out against the proposed policy, asking the government to stop an "institutional attack" on the environment.
The MP expressed various concerns about the proposed plan, including the lack of proper justification for the policies included as well as the document's lack of depth, stating that it included a lot of "airy-fairy" assertions. She said that certain aspects, including references to feasibility, could also pave the way for abuse.
On her part, Dr Farrugia stressed that during the debate in committee, she had sought to ensure that SPED would not only be the best document it could be, but also that it would be approved by both the government and the opposition.
She defended the extensive consultation that the committee carried out - which had been criticised fellow government MPs - stating that if NGOs and individuals felt they had not been listened to properly, this had to be addressed.
As for the document itself, the MP said that it was not perfect, highlighting that everything it included was open to multiple interpretations. But she said that she remained optimistic about the outcome, and that she had faith that the government would translate its vision into a true improvement.
Deciding on striking a balance between environmental protection and development was a huge responsibility, the MP said, before suggesting that independent institutions - rather than the government - should propose environmental policies.
She referred to the controversy surrounding plans to build an "American University of Malta" in an undeveloped area in the Żonqor area of Marsascala at the end of her address, stating that the government was still in time to prove it can live up to its promise of sustainable development.
The MP said that if the government managed to retain the investment without sacrificing Malta's natural heritage, it would prove that it could strike a balance.
Next to speak was opposition MP Ryan Callus, who argued that ultimately, it was the controversy surrounding the proposed development in Żonqor that led to the amendments to SPED.
Mr Callus insisted that the SPED was an exercise in plagiarism largely lifted from the objectives of the previous plan, with cosmetic adjustments to suit the needs of the present government.
To emphasise his belief that SPED was no adequate replacement for the Structure Plan, he brought out copies of both, emphasising that the new 30-page document was far less substantial than the voluminous plan it was replacing.