Not in a Tom and Jerry act approach please!

Reading the editorial entitled "What is going on in parliament?" (May 3) compelled me to react. However, rather than simply reacting, I am going to straighten out some facts, delve into some issues and emphasise some arguments.

The editorial dealt with a number of noteworthy issues with regard to the way in which parliament operates. However, they were somehow fused together in a concoction even if personally I see only a remote common line of thought.

The first issue mentioned concerned the parliamentary debate held a couple of weeks ago about the extensive damages in Qormi during the September 15, 2003 storm. First fact to straighten out is that this debate was the result of a private member's motion, which is an individual right of members of parliament emanating from the Standing Orders. Thus, it was not a motion tabled by the opposition per se.

I had tabled this private member's motion on October 15, 2003, a month after the storm. Qormi has regularly suffered damages and even loss of life at certain times during such storms. However, this time round, storm water levels reached areas which have never been affected before. It was by sheer luck that no lives were lost as water levels rose as high as six and even eight courses in houses in the areas hit.

Qormi happens to be enclosed by two of the largest valleys in Malta - Wied il-Kbir and Wied Incita. These valleys have not been maintained for years. Notwithstanding the fact that the natural flow of water has, over the years, been blocked by structures built in its way, the government still failed to intervene.

There is nothing shameful in bringing forward people's concerns at the highest level of national discussion. However, my motion was also intended to further emphasise the need for immediate government attention and action after 17 years of inertia over this very high-risk spot in Malta, where not only people's material life-long assets are all the time at stake but even their very lives.

Unfortunately, the government has not heeded the various calls made by innumerous parliamentary questions, newspaper articles, correspondence, protests and even technical reports drafted by both local and foreign experts. Nonetheless, every time we are promised more surveys and more reports, without anything substantial and effective ever being done.

Confirmation of all this can be sought through the parliamentary records and I am sure even in The Times' own archives. In August 2003, people from the Wied Incita area held a protest in view of the terrible state that part of the valley was in, so as to raise further awareness of the need for the government to act. The media was invited to view the area. I personally took The Times reporter in my own car to tour the extent of the dilapidated state of Wied Incita and to the very spot where the government now, after wasting six years, is continuing the storm water relief project started by the Labour government back in 1997.

Qormi has five per cent of Malta's total population and hosts 40 per cent of Malta's warehousing activity. However, during all these years Qormi was never afforded a single danger alarm signal like those installed in Birkirkara and Balzan, for example.

My private motion could be interpreted as having parochial interests but having been elected to parliament by these people I have a direct duty to the people of Qormi and their welfare. Thus, my duty entails my resorting to all that is legitimate and legally correct in order to bring forth their legitimate claims. I must stress that my private motion did not serve parochial interests alone; it brought forward a number of national concerns, such that insurance companies are not covering businesses and residential homes in the storm hit areas, which is consequently effecting the value of property in Qormi and its whereabouts. Most of these consequences are the direct result of the lack of responsible action and pro-activeness by the government over the years.

A second issue raised was that of the Omnibus Bill, the implications of which have nothing to do with the debate on my private motion. The comparison does not follow. Bringing for debate a bill such as the Omnibus one is just another demonstration of the arrogance and omnipotence of the Nationalist Party in government. Parliament has been rendered to just a rubber stamp institution where constructive debating has become a very rare occasion, albeit the many declarations for consensus seeking.

A third issue raised was about whether there is the need for members of parliament to become full-time employees or not. This too is very different to the subject matter of my private member motion. There are many other facets to this issue. Some of us are discriminated against, such as those who previously were in government employment. These are not only hindered from enjoying their well-earned employment but also constrained in keeping abreast of the latest work practices in their respective fields and also prohibited from seeing their career move ahead. To add insult to injury they are not even paid during the writ and they cannot return to their jobs; they are simply left to the charity of their families, if they have.

All members of parliament in opposition lack all sort of support such as research and information services and facilities.

Nevertheless, I definitely agree with the editorial that there is a great need to improve the manner in which the House and its committees operate. The need for a review has to be done in a mature and professional manner and not in a Tom and Jerry act approach, please!

Ms Coleiro is the Labour opposition's spokesman for social solidarity.