Parliament on Monday approved in second reading a Bill amending the Interpretation Act, aimed at increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of parliamentary time.

Justice Minister Owen Bonnici said the Bill would standardise the procedure to be followed when presenting negative resolutions to Parliament to amend or revoke subsidiary legislation.

Legal notices could be contested in Parliament and in court and this served as a means to scrutinise ministerial powers.

The Bill extended the time period for the parliamentary debate on these issues from 28 to a maximum of 60 days after the subsidiary legislation is tabled in the House.

He said this was necessary to plan and organise parliamentary work better.

Opposition deputy leader Mario de Marco recalled that this amend-ment became necessary after the Speaker’s interpretation of such a legal clause that was a tool used to check delegated legislation.

The Chair had correctly said that a motion attacking a Legal Notice had to be debated and resolved within a 28-day period after tabling.

Dr de Marco said the Opposition would not object to this Bill because it appreciated the need for flexibility in organising parliamentary work.

This period would now be extended by a further 32 days at most.

However, he called for the reasonable use of this period, adding that where the element of urgency existed, the government should present the motion for discussion earlier.

He proposed that where a legal notice was contested through a motion, its implementation would be suspended until its resolution in the House.

Winding up the short debate, Dr Bonnici welcomed the Opposition’s agreement to the rationalisation of negative resolutions.

He said it was obvious that the government should bring forward highly charged matters for discussion as early as possible. He disagreed with Dr de Marco’s proposal to suspend implementation of a legal notice.

This applied especially to subsidiary legislation which implemented EU directives and which had a time limit.

If such contested notices had to be suspended, Malta would have to face infringement procedures.

The Bill was unanimously approved.

The House also approved the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill which ensured the freedom to broadcast, the freedom of reception and the freedom of retransmissionin in line with the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive of 2010.