It takes two to tango

I must express my satisfaction at the fact that the government seems to be in favour of setting up an EU scrutiny committee as advocated in my last contribution to this paper and also proposed by other members of the Labour Party.

The amendments to the original bill presented in parliament regarding the ratification of the European Union accession treaty are steps in the right direction. Labour's constructive and proactive criticism to the anomalies of this Bill was to the point.

The opposition pointed out that the government wanted to treat our national parliament as a simple rubber stamp and pressed for a scrutinising body to be established. During the debate in the committee stage, the government accepted this argument and the necessary changes to the Bill were adopted.

Another important point of disagreement raised by Labour concerned the government's intention to invest the prime minister with the temporary power to change laws in order to bring them compliant to EU legislation. This government-proposed measure took things a step too far. Labour MPs made their voices heard and on the last day of the debate the government made the necessary amendments to the clause.

Unfortunately, the government was not so proactive when it came to state formally that no EU rule will be in conflict with the Maltese Constitution. The Maltese government only made a verbal commitment in this sense. The opposition called for a division and voted against that particular clause.

This is only the beginning. The first fruits of this new way of doing things have already been reaped. Nevertheless, there is still a long way to go. A second important test is the way in which the Nationalist government will be treating parliament before and during the inter-governmental conference (IGC) that will discuss and seal the constitutional treaty of the European Union.

Will the government discuss its position in the IGC in parliament prior to the beginning of this conference?

Will there be an attempt for a consensus on the common position on this issue?

Will the government be regularly reporting to our national parliament about the progress of the IGC?

These are questions that need to be answered as soon as possible, given that this extremely important conference is due to start in October.

Personally, I think that a fully-fledged parliamentary debate should be held about the issue prior to the IGC and that the foreign affairs minister should appear regularly before the parliamentary committee responsible for EU scrutiny in order to brief members on the shape that things would be taking.

The opposition has also put forward a number of suggestions that the government should consider in a serious manner. These deal mainly with the Malta-EU steering and action committee (Meusac) and the Malta-EU Information Centre (MIC).

Labour is of the opinion that these two entities should not continue to be government organisations within a ministry. Instead of falling under the competence of the Foreign Affairs Ministry, Meusac and MIC should take the form of parliamentary entities, as in the case of the Ombudsman and the Auditor General. Thus, they would be parliamentary institutions accountable to the country's highest institution.

Such a change would help these institutions make a leap in credibility. In the case of Meusac, the civil society organisations would get the message that there will be a permanent forum where they can discuss EU-related issues of interest to them. Furthermore, this institution would not be dependent on the government.

In the case of MIC, this change would ensure that only correct and impartial information is given to the public, something that was not always the case during past years.

This is the way forward which we are proposing. Nevertheless, as in everything else, it takes two to tango.

Mr Muscat is the Labour Party's education secretary