Parliament yesterday continued to debate two motions setting up as many new Select Committees - one to discuss the drafting of a law on assisted procreation and another to make recommendations on the codification of the Laws of Malta.

Labour MP Anġlu Farrugia clarified that there had been no consultations between the government and the opposition on the two motions. He moved an amendment to both of them, to the effect that the two select committees should be chaired by Mr Speaker or, in his absence, by the Deputy Speaker, but added that the opposition would be voting in favour of the motions anyway.

Introducing the debate on the motions on Tuesday, Leader of the House Tonio Borg said it was not a practice for the House to appoint Select Committees except for specific, far-reaching changes.

In the case of IVF, the need for setting up a Select Committee had been felt even though the Social Affairs Committee had already done a lot of good work thereon, setting up parameters but stopping short of making specific recommendations.

It must be admitted that Maltese legislation had lagged behind in scientific and other areas, leaving them unregulated. If there was no legislation on the destruction of embryos, for example, then such destruction could not be seen as a crime. There was not even any legislation on the freezing of embryos.

To sum up, there was nothing that could not be done except for abortion.

Many were talking about IVF, but hardly anyone pointed out the importance of informing intending families of the potential consequences, psychological and otherwise.

The government had nothing against a childless but desirous couple taking all possible steps to procreate a child. If modern science made this possible, everything should be allowed to redress a seeming deficiency of nature, so long as the couple was not exploited or put into impossible situations.

Other aspects the Select Committee should address would be the rights of the unborn child and the responsibility the couple was taking on even before adopting the process.

The resultant child should at all times be treated as if it had been naturally conceived. This was why, Dr Borg said, he was personally against the donation of sperm without knowing the identity of the donor.

One of the conditions laid out would have to be the couple's eligibility for the process. Should there be any proof that IVF was the measure of last resort? There were those who were absolutely against the freezing of embryos, and on the other side those who were in favour of such freezing in specific circumstances, such as when anything unforeseen happened to the mother-to-be just before implantation.

The setting of a three-month deadline did not mean the job had to be completed by then. The Select Committee could also be asked to express an opinion on any Bill referred by the government.

On the second motion consolidating Maltese laws, Minister Borg said that Malta had about 500 laws, some of which were anachronistic and did not make sense in today's reality.

The same applied in other countries and in the EU action had been taken to eliminate those laws or regulations which did not make sense and integrate related laws.

In Malta, similar offences were judged under different laws. Taking drug abuse as an example, Dr Borg said offences related to narcotic drugs were judged under the Dangerous Drugs Act while synthetic drug offences were ruled by the Medical and Kindred Professions Act.

Minister Borg said that in 1854 the Government Council had adopted a system of law codification. Malta had five codifications relating to civil, criminal, commercial and police matters and the code of organisation of organisation and civil procedure.

Different administrations had tried to find a solution by appointing law revision commissions. Later, this had also become the remit of the Attorney General.

Dr Borg said that a better system could be the setting up of a Select Committee of the House, as was being recommended at this stage.

This committee would have a lot of ground to cover. It would present a number of reports, including partial reports, giving technical advice on which laws could be struck off the book.

Every six months the chairperson of the committee would have to present a progress report. Special reports could be submitted by the committee pointing at shortcomings in certain laws. This would lead to harmonisation of various laws and updating of others, concluded Dr Borg.

Labour MP Anġlu Farrugia clarified that there had been no consultations between the government and the opposition on the two motions. His first reaction was that one first needed to consider the effectiveness of select committees. Yet the opposition would not refrain from commenting on the motions and from making proposals in this respect.

Originally there had been agreement in the House for the establishment of the current select committee, which had an equal number of representatives from both sides of the House and which was chaired by the Speaker or, in his absence, by the Deputy Speaker.

Dr Farrugia questioned why it was only now that the government was proposing the establishment of a select committee on the codification of laws, when there were already structures in place such as the Office of the Attorney General. He also queried why the creation of select committees was not being proposed on issues of national importance, such as irregular immigration, as requested by Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat to discuss irregular immigration and for Parliament to take action on this. Yet the government had not agreed with the setting up of such a select committee.

The government's expectation of opposition support for the two motions amounted to political arrogance, he said.

The government had also acted arrogantly in the way it presented motions such as the one related to the procedure of work for the House, effectively ridiculing it and pushing Parliament to violation of the Constitution.

Dr Farrugia commended the work carried out by both the current Social Affairs Committee, chaired by MP Edwin Vassallo, and the previous one chaired by MP Clyde Puli, on the issue of assisted procreation. The select committee being set up by one of the motions would be expected to present a draft legislation.

Intervening, Dr Borg said that where the committee did not come up with a unanimously-agreed draft legislation the committee would be expected to provide a draft to represent the differing opinions of the committee members.

Continuing, Dr Farrugia said that in assisted procreation the concept of donations by third parties had already included very liberal thoughts, and questioned whether one could restrict this so as to bring it into line with social morality.

Moving his amendment to both motions to reflect the original agreement on the creation of select committees, in that the chairperson should be the Speaker or in his absence the Deputy Speaker, he added that in relation to the select committee on assisted procreation he was also proposing that its work ought to be finalised by the end of June 2010, rather than within three months from its setting up.

On the committee on the codification of laws Dr Farrugia commented that the work was quite a handful and it was expected to consider various laws. He proposed that the quorum should be of three members.

He insisted that these amendments were being moved on the basis of principle, and promised that should there be agreement on these amendments the members of the opposition selected to sit on these committees would work hard. Work ought to start without delay, he added.

Other speakers taking part in the debate were Edwin Vassallo (PN), Anthony Zammit, Joe Mizzi and Josè Herrera (all PL). Their speeches will be reported later.