The House of Assembly could debate the Ombudsman’s report on the handling of the Tucker’s Point Special Development Order (SDO) this week.In a statement, United Bermuda Party MP Charlie Swan said he intends to debate the legislation on May 11 when the House resumes.Mr Swan said: “The office of the Ombudsman is a constitutional office with a responsibility clearly outlined. Whilst this Government deserves credit for introducing the Office of the Ombudsman, it is still slow to understand that it is not above the rules, laws and constitution of Bermuda.”“This motion will give the Parliament an opportunity to address not only this report and its recommendations, but also the mindset and example of a Government ignoring best practice procedures.”“Whilst it is hoped that debate will be robust, and focused on the issue’s raised in the motion, Bermuda needs a government committed to use good governance best practices.”Mr Swan moved in February that the report, titled “Today’s Choices, Tomorrow’s Costs,” be debated in the House, but it was agreed that the debate would not take place until Government had reviewed and replied to the report.Minister of the Environment, Planning and Infrastructure Strategy Marc Bean responded to the report this week, saying Ombudsman Arlene Brock was wrong to say Government had acted unlawfully by not conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before granting the SDO.Speaking at a press conference, Mr Bean said: “The Ombudsman based her finding on a misguided belief that the UK Environment Charter constitutes law. Again, we have taken advice from both the Attorney General’s office and the FCO via Government House and concluded that the UK Environment Charter does not constitute law.“It is unenforceable. Rather, the UK itself considers the Charter to be ‘aspirational.’”He noted that the Charter encourages each territory to establish its own framework to meet their individual needs.”Ms Brock responded by saying she was disappointed by the Government’s response, saying: “Unfortunately, the Government’s response quibbles with legalities rather than explain why it changed its mind that EIAs ought to be conducted for all major developments, and especially for those that are likely to cause significant adverse impact on the environment.“The Government’s response does not address the fundamental issue: no EIA was conducted prior to making a decision of such vital public importance.”