Can Parliament be creative?

When I visited the Finnish Parliament last summer as a member of the Foreign and European Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, I was particularly intrigued by a committee that had been mentioned to us - the Committee for the Future.

This committee is unique, in the sense that apart from having 'different' functions and new tasks, it regularly conducts an active and initiative-generating dialogue with the government on major future problems and seeks means of solving them - from Information Technology to demographics and health care, among other areas.

Since the challenges of the future and above all its opportunities cannot be studied through traditional parliamentary procedures and work methods alone, the committee has been given the specific task of also following and using the results of future research.

And yet the committee does not rely on research alone; it can be said to be making policy on the future because its goal is not basic research but rather policy itself.

On the basis of the committee's work, the Finnish parliament decided that the government should submit a report on the future, at least once during each electoral period linked to Finland's long-term development options.

I would summarise its main functions as follows:

* It prepares parliamentary documents referred to it, such as Parliament's response to the government's Response on the Future
* It issues statements to other committees on matters related to the future when asked to do so
* It discusses issues pertaining to future development factors and development models
* It analyses research regarding the future, including methodology
* It also serves as the parliamentary body responsible for assessing technological development and its consequences for society.

The current committee, which was formed after the March 2003 elections, has started with five special issues:

• the future of the Finnish information society;
• the future of public health care;
• human security as an extensive long-term phenomenon;
• regional innovation systems;
• social capital in view of future risks for children and young people.

One important task of the committee is to assess the social impact of technological development.

The committee often commissions studies from research institutes to support its work.

Technology assessment in this context means analysing the impact of applying science and technology to society.

The committee arranges visits to other parts of the world to find out about the latest social and technological innovations.

As main Opposition spokesman on IT, I was recently asked by our parliamentary group to attend a conference on "Human competency development in the information society" organised under the aegis of the Fifth General Assembly of the International Parliamentarians' Association for Information Technology in Helsinki. The conference itself was organised by the Committee for the Future.

The first thing that struck me on my arrival was that the provisional list of participants was not restricted to parliamentarians from other European destinations. On the contrary the most numerous delegations hailed from various countries, including China, Angola, Poland and Vietnam.

Among the most interesting agenda items were the country reports, where delegates were invited to provided an outline brief on ICT developments in their own country.

I did this too to the best of my ability while also focusing on the vision statement on ICT which the Labour Party formally launched literally on the eve of the Finnish conference.

From the presentations made by the various delegates one could gauge the level of progress achieved by various countries - from the still evolving situation in Central Africa to South Korea, where the government is trying to introduce a degree of robotics ideally in every household.

Nevertheless there was one common factor even among delegates from countries where ICT features highly on their national political and economic agenda - the need to develop further ICT human resources.

The South Koreans distinguished between the need for ICT students, employees in IT business, R&D human resources and the importance of having top-notch R&D experts. Nevertheless there was one common theme running through their strategy:

• the need to constantly provide career paths and education in ICT;
• the shortage of human resources in converged technologies and high level R&D sector
• the skills mismatch between industry and university, and
• the need to enhance IT literacy education.

Since 2004 the Finnish parliament has been mapping out a strategy based on the creation of "a caring, encouraging and creative Finland - a review of the challenges of our information society".

Basically it is meant to provide a blueprint of the future of the Finnish information society.

Although the focus of the review was on the actions that must be taken in the near future, the committee's work was based on a wider perspective, the objective being to provide a foundation for discussion on the development of the Finnish information society and on the identification of new solutions.

Although they are pioneers in the ICT sector, the Finns will not rest on their laurels since, they argue, if they continue with a 'business as usual' approach, they risk falling further and further behind the leading nations.

To maintain their leading position in this new phase of the information society they feel they must be able to meet a number of challenges.

The five key concepts on which they are formulating their strategy are a creative economy, a creative welfare society, humanly meaningful development, international interaction and an inclusive information society.

Finnish MPs make it clear that they need active reform to maintain Finland's future competitiveness, wealth, social equality and the welfare society that generates equality.

In Malta I meet many people from various walks of life who restrict themselves to talking about globalisation's threat without seriously appraising its opportunities. Others prefer to beat its 'problems' by ignoring them completely.

Finland's Committee for the Future argues that it has already benefited greatly from globalisation, claiming that its future well-being will also depend on its ability to foresee the development of globalisation and control it.

The Committee for the Future has been praised in international discussions for its favourable disposition to technology and particularly for its value-based approach to matters related to the future.

As is often applicable to Malta, the Finns complain that in many European countries, when the social effects of technology are evaluated, technology is mainly considered as a threat that must be warded off.

Finland, together with the Baltic states, has succeeded in ICT and R&D because it has always seen technology as an opportunity.

For this reason its committee claims that it is important that they continue to maintain an open and innovative 'atmosphere' like this in the building of the creative economy.

When I asked one MP what was the 'secret' of their success, he replied that a high quality education system and efficient research and development activities continue to be Finland's strengths that have guaranteed their success in the tough global competition and helped to prevent their marginalisation.

I am down to earth enough to realise that our Parliament does not have the resources and logistical strengths to emulate the Finnish model overnight. But under a Labour government we should strive to give evidence of the political will to move in this direction.

leo.brincat@gov.mt