An EU scrutiny committee

With its decision to vote against the ratification of the EU Accession Treaty the Labour parliamentary group is being coherent to the mandate given to it by 48 per cent of the electorate. These voters approved Labour's manifesto which did not choose Malta's full membership of the European Union.

As I have already argued some time ago, Labour's decision does not mean the opposition party is not respecting the will of the majority. Far from it. Democracy has its rules and Labour is fully abiding by these rules. The statements that have been made are very clear. Labour will be voting against this ratification and will then work in the country's and people's best interest in the context of European Union membership.

The MLP will now work to see that the promised "goodies from Brussels" will actually materialise and do not remain just a pie in the sky. At the same time, we are determined to defend Maltese workers, the self-employed, young people, pensioners and families from the drawbacks and hardships of EU membership which only recently have started to be somewhat acknowledged by the government.

People will be expecting much of both the government and the opposition and both will be tested by the way they live up to their promises and vigilance. Honeymoons and grace periods will soon be over and everyone must start to deliver. The government has promised a lot and must deliver a lot. Labour has pledged a more proactive role and people will test our commitment.

I am sure that Labour has the ability to fulfil its role. Moreover, I believe that the party should come out with proposals to make sure that the best interests of Malta and its people are well defended in the new context of European Union membership. One such proposal could be the setting up of a parliamentary EU scrutiny committee.

The visit to Malta by the members of the equivalent of this committee in the House of Commons helped many realise the relevance of putting such a structure in place.

The enormous load of EU directives that will be faced by our legislators calls for close scrutiny that cannot possibly best take place during plenary sessions of our House of Representatives. This is why I believe that the setting up of such a committee would actually help improve the quality of debate. It would also better inform both members of parliament and the public about what type of legislation is being proposed and the effects it could have on different sections of the Maltese people.

It is heartening to see that there are already a number of Labour MPs who are pushing in favour of this development.

The British committee's main role is that of examining the political and legal importance of each EU document, which add up to more than 1,000 every year, and determining which should be debated in parliament.

Furthermore, the EU scrutiny committee also has the power to question ministers on the stands they take during the EU Council of Ministers' meetings.

For a government that is fond of creating structures, this should not be a case of one committee too many. Or should we take it that if something is not spelt out in the acquis communautaire then the government will be reluctant to do it even though it is in Malta's best interests?

Furthermore, the government has already announced the creation of a number of structures at cabinet and government levels to carry out some sort of monitoring of the implementation of EU rules. Parliament should not be treated as a rubber stamp. It should be given at least the same possibilities and resources to carry out such scrutiny as in the case of the government.

After all, a parliament made up of democratically elected representatives of the people is the country's highest institution, is it not?

Mr Muscat is the MLP's education secretary.