Malta is getting so over administered that the time may well come when, just as political parties used to have street leaders, the country could well end up having street administrative committees if the central administration were to become so politically generous as to decide to meet the whim of any small group of residents that want a council of their own! The argument has been purposely blown out of proportion to highlight what the decision to have mini-councils for tiny places could really mean.

Besides the ever-increasing number of quangos that decentralisation is spawning, commissions and committees proliferate. A good number are well required and have been doing a good job. But it is doubtful whether Malta needs all of them. The same can be said of local councils, which have now been part of the country's administrative set-up for a number of years. It can well be argued that, for such a tiny country, we have far too many councils and, in any case, it does not seem that the people have a high opinion of them, even though some have proved their worth.

One problem is that many of the councils are not well managed and, in the case of a number of them, they have not made much of a difference to their locality. On the contrary, they have antagonised the people, something that goes diametrically against the very purpose for which the councils were set up in the first place. The Administration has been excruciatingly slow in properly assessing the councils' work and come up with the reform that is now taking place.

The point is, when the country has so many councils already, is it wise to further fragmentise the administration and set up mini-councils? Rather than rationalising the system and see how the number could be reduced, the country is going in the opposite direction. Now, even Bubaqra will have its own council! No fewer than 16 localities, considered somewhat cut off from the towns or villages they fall under, are going to have their own mini-council. Would it not have been better had the councils of these localities appointed a member from among their committees to personally see to the needs of these places?

The move to set up these mini-councils, or administrative committees, as they are called, leads to unnecessary work, election hassle and expense. According to the arrangements made, each administrative committee would have five members, including a president, who would automatically be able to take part in local council meetings. Is not this going a bit too far? Pretty soon, other localities will be demanding to have their own mini-councils and, given that councils are considered as extensions to parties, it would not be surprising if, one fine day, the government would extend the number of mini-councils.

It is unlikely that the decision to set up the committees will be reversed but, clearly, the move calls for serious reflection on the way matters are evolving, and, rather than setting up more and more committees, the central Administration should focus on helping the councils become more efficient. Changing the role of the executive secretary may help a lot to bring order to the way the councils operate. This is badly needed, as shown by the countless number of shortcomings highlighted by the Auditor General in his last report.

The Administration's policy on local councils ought to be directed towards making them meet the people's expectations.