Environment Minister Marc Bean yesterday insisted Bermuda’s Ombudsman was wrong to say Government acted unlawfully during the Tucker’s Point development row.In a report in February, Arlene Brock claimed Government broke the law by failing to conduct an Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) before granting a special development order for the controversial hotel expansion on land deemed precious by green campaigners.But Mr Bean yesterday argued it is not illegal to break the conditions of the UK Environment Charter, the document stating an EIA is required before development is approved.Ms Brock replied with a statement of her own, saying she is very disappointed with Government’s formal response to her report.She accused Government of quibbling with legalities rather than explaining why it didn’t carry out the EIA, which she said was vital given the fierce public interest in the matter.Mr Bean told a press conference Government takes issue with Ms Brocks claim there was “a collective failure of due diligence to determine applicable law, international standards and best practice relevant to a decision of national priority”.The Minister said: “The Ombudsman has 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 conclude that the UK Environmental Charter does not constitute law.“It is unenforceable. Rather, the UK itself considers the Charter to be ‘aspirational’.“It is therefore important to set the record straight. The Government did not act unlawfully, as reported by the Ombudsman, and as a consequence reported by the media, and as championed by the Opposition.”Asked why Government had signed a charter but not followed one of its principles, the Minister replied that, while it agrees with the wider aims of the document, Government is not duty-bound to abide with each of its details.The UK Environment Charter, he noted, encourages each territory to establish its own framework to meet its individual needs.Ms Brock responded: “My preliminary view is that I am very disappointed.“I had expected a more substantive response on the value of Environmental Impact Analysis for special development orders that will cause adverse impact on the environment.“The fundamental issue in my report is that decision-makers and stakeholders were not furnished with full, neutral and factual information.“Unfortunately, the Government’s response quibbles with legalities rather than explain why it has changed its mind that EIAs ought to be conducted for all major development and especially for those that are likely to cause significant adverse impact on the environment.“This was clearly the view that the Government subscribed to in the 2001 UK Environment Charter. The failure to require an EIA for the Tucker’s Point proposal reneges on the mandatory language of the Charter and calls our signature and word into question.“The Government’s response does not address the fundamental issue: no EIA was conducted prior to making a decision of such vital public importance.“Decision-makers ought to have received the data that can only come from a comprehensive EIA, including adequate public disclosure and consultation.”In February, Mr Bean said Ms Brock had opened herself up to accusations of bias by conducting an ‘own motion’ investigation into the Tucker’s Point controversy, without receiving a complaint from the public.Yesterday, he issued a public apology for that point, conceding he was wrong to question Ms Brock’s ability to carry out an own motion probe.However, he criticised Ms Brock’s previous assertion Ombudsmen are generally doing their job properly when Governments are upset.“The role of the Ombudsman is not to be adversarial towards the Government, neither is it to be in comity with the Government,” said the Minister.“Its role is to be neither friend nor foe, with the modern term for this being non-partiality. To state that when Government is upset is an indication of the Ombudsman’s effectiveness, reveals a clear bias, and a departure from the principle of non-partiality.”And he said Government’s position remains that the Ombudsman erred in law by investigating the action of a Minister.Ms Brock has said she was actually investigating the actions of the civil service, but Mr Bean said yesterday: “In this regard, we disagree.”Ms Brock said she appreciated that the Minister was willing to apologise for questioning her own motion authority and added: “I look forward to an opportunity to clear up other misconceptions in his press statement of today.”The Opposition One Bermuda Alliance’s Senator Michael Fahy said: “No matter how the Government twists this way and turns that way, no matter how much they protest that this investigation was not legal, and that it was improper, the ombudsman gave them a thrashing.“Her report got them dead to rights. She did Bermuda, and our environment a tremendous service, and deserves the community's gratitude. Accusing the messenger of bias is not an unsurprising reaction from this Government. After all, attempting to cast doubt on the integrity of the messenger is their specialty.”