Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at the outset, let me make it clear that application for Building and Land Use Permits, commonly known as BLUPs, are processed under the Local Government Act 2011 through the NELS, that is, the National e-Licensing System. Under the present system, certain clearances from public utilities, namely the CEB, CWA, and WMA are already integrated in NELS and are subject to prescribed timeframes. Where an application is complete and only such clearances are required, the matter may be determined within the statutory period. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many BLUPs applications are not so straightforward. Depending on the nature, scale, and location of the proposed development, the local authority may have to seek the views or clearances of other competent authorities such as the Road Development Authority, the Land Drainage Authority, the Traffic Management and Road Safety Unit, and the Forestry Service, the Ministry of Environment, Solid Waste Management and Climate Change, the Ministry of Health, or the Ministry of Agro-Industry, among others. These clearances are not mere formalities. They are required to ensure that the proposed development complies with road safety, drainage, flood mitigation, environmental health, infrastructure, and planning requirements before a permit is issued. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the difficulty is that several of these authorities are not yet fully integrated into the NELS platform. In many cases, they operate under their own procedures, technical standards, and timelines. In practice, their views may be received at different stages. When those views contain conditions or required changes, the applicant must then be informed and requested to submit revised plans, additional documents, technical reports, or other particular. Therefore, to the first part of the question, the answer is yes. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, even after an applicant has obtained certain initial clearances, additional amendments may still be required by the local authority where such amendments are necessary to ensure full compliance with the requirements imposed by the competent authority and with the law. This is not done to create unnecessary obstacle. It is done to avoid unsafe, non-compliant or legally defective approvals. For example, the RDA or the Traffic Management Road Safety Unit may require changes relating to access, visibility, or traffic flow. The LDA may require flood mitigation measures or upgrading of existing drainage systems. The environment authorities may impose conditions to protect sensitive areas. The council must ensure that these requirements are properly reflected to the final approved plans before issuing any permits. With regard to the second part of the question, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fully understand the concern about delays and repeated amendments. It is true that applicants need a system which is faster, clearer, and even more predictable. However, limiting amendments to one single instance in all cases would not always be practical or safe. Technical issues may appear only after revised plan are examined or after another authority has submitted its views. A rigid time of amendment rule could result either in premature rejection of the application, or worse, in the approval of projects which do not properly meet safety, drainage, or environmental or planning standards. That said, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Government is fully conscious that the present system must be improved. My Ministry is, therefore, examining measures to make the BLUP process more efficient and more transparent. These include –  the integration of all major clearance authorities into NELS;  The introduction of clearer statutory response timelines for relevant authorities;  better inter-agency coordination;  real-time tracking of referral and responses, and  where possible, the issuing of one consolidated list of amendment to applicants to reduce unnecessary back and forth. Such reforms may require administrative changes, service level arrangement between authorities, and due consideration is therefore being given by my Ministry to prescribe all other relevant authorities, whose views and clearances are required, but who are not presently registered on the NELS. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our objective is clear. To make the BLUP process faster, more business-friendly and more legally certain, while ensuring that we do not compromise on safety, proper planning, infrastructure, drainage, or environmental protection in the public interest. Thank you.

Yes, hon. Jugurnauth.

Yes. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is the hon. Minister aware that more amendments after all the clearance from all ministries, then again, the promoter has to pay more for the designer, which is unfair?

What is your question?

My question is whether amendment will made to remove this...

So, you want the hon. Minister to review this system which is unfair?

The amendments. Yes, because after…

Hon. Minister...

…NELS, which is unfair for promoter to pay more.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we will look into the matter because anyway, if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, he can come up and we can see it to it. We will come with these regulations as soon as possible. We are working on it.

Yes. The hon. First Member for Rodrigues. I understand the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs will answer this question. AFRICAN REGIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION (ARIPO) – E-FILING SYSTEM – PROCEDURES & SENSITISATION