Pippo Psaila and the Sports Law

I would like to make some remarks on the interview given by Pippo Psaila (The Sunday Times, June 29), where Mr Psaila commented on the Sports Law which was enacted last year.

First and foremost, I must say that I have full respect for Mr Psaila and obviously his resignation is seen to be a loss for sports.

As a party, we had the opportunity to meet the MOC including Mr Psaila himself, on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 and we recognised the good work that was done by the MOC, also thanks to him.

In his interview, Mr Psaila was quoted as saying that 'Despite some serious repercussions, the law was approved by both sides of the House'.

One must note that there are various stages for a law to become so.

At the end of the second reading (Sitting 775, dated July 16, 2002), the Opposition voted against the bill and also called for a division.

I was the first speaker from the Opposition and explained why we were going to vote against.

Some of the reasons for voting against were the same as those mentioned by Mr Psaila in his interview.

The fact that the primary role of the law to promote and develop sports was not going to be reached, was one of the reasons.

Another reason was that too much power was given to the government, while eliminating the department of sports, and replacing it by a 'glorified' department and also because the roles of the MOC, NGOs and the MSC were not clearly defined.

Moreover, in the committee stage, the law was debated clause by clause and this took almost 12 sessions.

With reference to Clause 6 (1) (1) - Functions of the Council and not Clause 4 as stated in the interview, the Opposition spoke against it for two reasons.

First, because the 'games' were mentioned, thus restricting the responsibility of the MOC in international games and, secondly, because of the last part of the clause 'for International Games which the Council may from time to time acknowledge as falling under the jurisdiction of the MOC'.

Later on the Maltese version was slightly amended by the word jaghraf instead of jidhirlu.

Other changes were made some of which quite significant, due to the Opposition's positive contribution and comments.

I fully endorse what was said in the same interview - 'Sport is not a political tool'.

That is why we chose to vote in favour in the third reading.