Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is indeed a very interesting matter. I am informed that the Morcellement Le Hameau because it is in fact a Morcellement, at least in name, was developed prior to August 2018 whereby a Morcellement permit was not required for bail à construction at that particular time. Now, later on, the Morcellement Act was amended through the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 2018 in order to address this. So, the amendment came afterwards whereas the development happened before the amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the House may wish to be informed that according to the then Environment Protection Act 2022, le Hameau Project was not a schedule undertaking requiring an Environment Impact Assessment licence. Consequently, no Environment Impact Assessment licence was issued for the said development and I say again because the law, as it stood then, did not make it a precondition. As regard to part (b) (i) of the question, I am also informed that Le Hameau Residential Project forms part of the Smart City Project in respect of which a Smart City Certificate was issued on 09 November 2018. Now, as regards part (b) (ii), I am further informed that following a complaint regarding noise disturbance emanating from the operations of the ex-Beau Plan Sugar Factory, namely the elevators and the weigh bridge, the then Ministry of Health – that was before the elections

84 of 2024 – carried out a noise survey and concluded that noise survey was within established range. But I was not communicated with a report of that survey that was allegedly carried out. However, I have also been informed that there was a survey that was carried out by a private party around the same time and that survey says exactly the contrary of what the Ministry of Health and Wellness said. The Ministry of Health and Wellness said, ‘In the survey we carried out, there is no noise above the permissible level of 60 decibels,’ whereas the survey carried out by the private consultant shows that over a week or more, the noise indeed goes almost to 80 decibels. So, in the circumstances, I have understood, based on all the information that has been communicated to me, that the relevant Ministries decided not to do anything following the complaints precisely because they based themselves on the fact that allegedly, the noise was within the permissible level, without me having ever been communicated that report. I am also aware that this development was, in fact, marketed as a morcellement. This is the information that I have. So, what I propose to do, just like I did earlier on for other hon. Members pertaining to land issues, since this is a matter that does bring about some confusion with conflicting reports and it concerns the value of land and it concerns the health of citizens living in the noisy environment, I propose to call the promoters as there are certain issues pertaining to the Morcellement Act that seems to have been put aside. I will ask my colleagues, the hon. Minister of Health and the hon. Minister of Environment, to join me to try to address this particular issue about the noise and to bring rectifications that are required. Thank you.

The hon. Second Member for Quartier Militaire and Moka! TORRENTIAL RAIN & FLOODS SEASON – WORKERS’ RIGHTS ACT AMENDMENT