Opposition says it will 'participate fully' in House EU committee

The opposition intended to participate fully in the House committee responsible for EU affairs, whatever form that committee had, Charles Mangion, deputy leader of the opposition, told parliament yesterday.

He added, however, that the opposition remained of the view that the House should create a committee focused exclusively on EU affairs rather than have the role of the foreign affairs committee extended to the EU, as the government was proposing.

Dr Mangion was speaking during the debate on a motion by the Leader of the House, Lawrence Gonzi, to extend the foreign affairs committee to include EU affairs.

At the end of his speech Dr Mangion moved amendments to Dr Gonzi's motion so that the House would have a standing committee on EU affairs and for MEUSAC and MIC to report to it rather than to the government.

He said that the committee on EU affairs would have a far more important role than the other House committees.

While the other committees discussed developments which would have already taken place, the EU committee would discuss proposed EU legislation and aim to ensure that the national interest was safeguarded. These were extensive responsibilities touching on all aspects of the everyday life of the Maltese. All this underlined the need to have a committee which was focused exclusively on the subject.

The opposition felt that the committee should have a number of independent experts who could give it their technical opinion.

At the same time, although a member of the EU, Malta was an independent and sovereign country with the right to establish bilateral relations with different countries, hence the need for a separate foreign affairs committee.

Dr Mangion said the amendment the opposition was moving provided that, without prejudice to the foreign affairs committee, EU affairs would be considered by a Committee on European Union Affairs and that the Malta EU Steering and Action Committee (MEUSAC) and the Malta Information Centre (MIC) would henceforth report to the EU committee.

Earlier in the debate, Parliamentary Secretary Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici said each House committee was a scrutiny committee on parliament's work or on the work of government departments.

Was there a need to appoint a new committee on EU affairs? He did not think so, as there was no need for duplication of work which other committees would be doing.

The government's motion to extend the role of the foreign affairs committee instead of creating another committee was well drawn up and would work in the current circumstances. If the volume of work grew rapidly in the future, things would change, but that reality did not currently exist.

This motion, however, should serve for the House to look more realistically at the standing orders and the Constitution itself. The latter had gone through a lot of cut and paste and it was time to look at it in a more wholesome manner.

Labour MP Helena Dalli said that upon joining the EU, Malta would have to apply all its rules, whether they were of benefit to the country or not.

As from May 2004, EU policy would no longer be foreign policy but rather domestic. Therefore it should be dealt with in a committee which was separate from that on foreign affairs.

European integration, she said, would weaken national parliaments. On accession, the executive would function as a gatekeeper conducting negotiations and acting as mediator, ensuring easier access to certain documents. This would weaken parliament in that it would not be able to effectively debate certain matters.

All this underlined the importance of having an effective EU committee to underline what role the national parliament could have in EU law-making.

Mr Tonio Fenech (PN) said the issue should not really be whether there should be one or two committees and he personally felt extending the role of the foreign affairs committee would meet requirements. The real issue, he said, was how the committee would work and the support structure it should have to make it more efficient in its work. He was of the view that the committee should hold public hearings to give members of the civil society the opportunity to contribute to its discussions.

A factor which also needed to be considered was that the committee's meetings should be scheduled in a way which would make it possible for Maltese MEPs to attend.

Winding up, Dr Gonzi said it was clear that both sides agreed on the most important point, which was the role and terms of reference of the committee, including the way it could set up sub-committees for specific subject areas. They also agreed that the committee members could be changed according to the committee's agenda, and that the committee could invite members of civil society to contribute to its proceedings.

He did not agree, however, that the members of civil society should actually be members of the committee, because this was a parliamentary committee composed of representatives of the people elected at general elections.

What both sides disagreed upon was the composition of the committee.

Referring to Opposition leader Alfred Sant's appeal on Tuesday for a compromise so that agreement could be reached, Dr Gonzi said the government, on September 30, had made a proposal to the opposition which was almost the same as proposed by Dr Sant on Tuesday, but it had been rejected.

In correspondence during the summer the opposition had insisted that there should be separate committees for foreign and EU affairs. The government had explained, however, that a shortage of human resources and logistics meant it was not possible to have two committees.

Dr Gonzi said that in his letter to Dr Mangion on September 30 he had proposed that there would be one committee composed of nine members when it discussed EU affairs, and seven members when it discussed foreign affairs. To his surprise, on October 6, Dr Mangion rejected this suggestion, without explaining why.

Dr Gonzi said the structure the government was proposing was not extraordinary but was the same as adopted by other countries, such as Luxembourg, which, like Malta, had the problem of having too few MPs. Indeed, the Luxembourg committee incorporated foreign affairs, the EU and also defence. Portugal too, had a committee for EU and external affairs.

Creating separate committees for foreign and EU affairs would not be feasible. One would have a situation where, because of the small number of MPs, the foreign affairs committee would not be able to meet while MPs were taken up by the EU affairs committee.

Mr Leo Brincat (MLP) said both committees could meet at the same time if they were differently composed.

Dr Gonzi asked how the minister of foreign affairs could be expected to sit on two committees at the same time.

Mr Brincat said committees in countries such as the UK had not found the need to meet simultaneously.

Dr Gonzi said it was the opposition which, throughout the debate, had said the EU committee would have a huge workload and would need to hold intensive debate.

Mr Brincat said that the foreign affairs committee only met about once a fortnight, and there would not, therefore, be overlap with the proposed EU committee.

Dr Gonzi said the opposition's position meant one would have to appoint two chairmen, which was a problem. If the same MP was appointed for both, both committees would not be able to meet at the same time. The government's proposed model allowed flexibility as the committee would be able to discuss foreign and EU affairs at the same meeting.

Over the past five years the foreign affairs committee discussed both foreign and EU affairs, Why could this not continue in future? It should also be remembered that the House committee for consideration of bills and the Social Affairs Committee had also discussed EU-related subjects.

It was true that the foreign and EU affairs committee would have a heavy workload, but one should not exaggerate, because the EU legislative proposals which would land before it would already be accompanied by government studies on their impact on Malta.

Concluding, Dr Gonzi said he appreciated Dr Mangion's remark that the opposition's MPs would participate fully in the work of the committee, whatever shape the committee had. He had no doubt that the division between the two sides was not out of pique but because both wanted the House to have the most efficient structure to consider EU matters. The government felt the model it had presented would meet all expectations.

Dr Mangion's amendment was defeated after a division and Dr Gonzi's motion was then approved.