Editorial

In a country that has one parliamentary session that lasts a legislature, rather than a new session every time MPs return from their summer break, today's reopening of Parliament can only be seen as a resumption of where the House left off in July.

The House rose for its recess after unanimously approving a Bill to authorise an extension of Malta's jurisdiction over fishing areas, but that atmosphere of consensus was tarnished by the fact that in the Social Affairs Committee, months of work on bioethics and assisted procreation - an exercise that considerably raised the committee's profile - ended in disarray with the members failing to come up with recommendations that enjoyed unanimous backing.

The figures show that the House was very busy between January and July. Seventy-two plenary sittings were held and there was a considerable rise in the number of meetings of the Foreign and European Affairs Committee and the Social Affairs Committee. The House passed 14 Bills through all stages and ministers replied to 5,000 parliamentary questions. The House also found time to debate various issues raised in private members' motions.

Progress was made in the planning of business for the plenary sitting. However, attention needs to be given to two points. Are MPs finding enough time, and do they have sufficient resources, to adequately consider draft legislation before it finds its way into the statute book? And are the people being sufficiently informed by the government of the consequences of legislative changes that are made?

Legislation, in this context, means not only laws approved by the House but, also, EU laws and regulations that are moved in Brussels and come before national parliaments for initial consideration, in Malta's case before the Foreign and European Affairs Committee. One hears whispers in the corridors of the House that MPs - whose duties in the House are only part-time - are not finding sufficient time to analyse what is being proposed. Sometimes, even attendance at committee meetings is low. Of course, issues of commitment, to the House as well as the committees, also come up.

A somewhat related issue is the way the Social Affairs Committee functioned over the past few months. The debate on bioethics was interesting but too long and procedural issues cropped up, such as the level of confidentiality of proceedings held in camera and the way the committee should act once a debate is concluded.

This being the tenth year since the formation of standing committees, the time has come for the House to analyse the effectiveness of the committees over these years and how their procedures can be improved in view of changed circumstances.

This new parliamentary year, if it can be so termed, is likely to be pivotal for the government. The budget, expected to be presented early this year because of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malta, assumes greater importance now that Malta has joined ERM II and needs to align its economy to the Maastricht criteria for euro adoption by 2008. In addition, decisions must be taken on pension and health reform.

Reform is also on the way for the ports, education, public transport, infrastructure and the environment. Even in cases where no legislation at all is needed for such reforms to be put into place, the House should still be given an opportunity to debate them, thus recognising the institutional role of the House as the link between the government and the people.

The way ahead for the House is therefore both busy and interesting.