It was almost a year ago that my colleague Carmelo Abela and I wrote to the chairperson of the House of Representatives Social Affairs Committee requesting a series of hearings to determine why Malta was lagging behind so much in research, development and innovation within the framework of a knowledge-based economy to which both sides of the House aspired.

The way our request was worded, we thought that it was hardly the stuff of which political controversies are made!

Our request was purely altruistic, in the sense that we felt that in the same way in which Malta had made certain strides forward in ICT, it only deserved to catch up in terms of research and development and innovation with those other countries who joined the European Union at the same time as we did.

Due to other business, the committee launched its hearings on Monday 26 September with a presentation by Industry, Investment and IT Minister Austin Gatt.

To everyone’s surprise, rather than outlining how he proposed to address our weaknesses on this topical but non-controversial issue, he embarked upon a blistering attack on the leader of the opposition by claiming that he did not really believe in a knowledge-based economy, particularly since he allegedly still favoured “sunset” industries with low value added as well as wanting to extend the Dockyard subsidies beyond their target date of 2008.

He even hinted that our request was based on a wrong premise, in the sense that you can have a knowledge-based economy without necessarily relying on either research or innovation.

Had he read our request carefully, he would have realised that even we had acknowledged that R & D and innovation were but components of the wider picture – that is a knowledge-based economy.

It is a pity that he was so hell bent on being partisan in his presentation that he did not seem to find the time or patience to answer our questions regarding the lack of inter-governmental cooperation and coordination in addressing these issues as well as whether or not there were adequate budgetary allocations available for them.

The only thing which he seemed interested in was to imply that the opposition still seems to be clinging to old practices connected with the manufacturing sector, without realising that other countries, such as Hong Kong, have completely de-industrialised themselves by moving to services and international trade.

Having had the opportunity to visit China this year and also to read a book which I know that the minister himself has read recently – China Inc. – I am fully aware of the shifts and trends in that particular part of the Asian continent, but surely his partisan outburst went way beyond the remit of the presentation that he was asked to deliver. In sharp contrast, the presentation by Competitiveness and Communications Minister Censu Galea was far more level-headed and objective, although obviously equally intended to shore up the government’s efforts by claiming that much research was being carried out locally with most of it being inexplicably unmeasured.

One sincerely hopes that in the meetings that follow, when we will be addressed by the major stakeholders – including government quangos and institutions, apart from the social partners and the NGOs – there will be far more objectivity and less interest in sounding apologetic about the government’s failure in this regard.

This is something which, after all, was highlighted by the World Economic Forum index last year – a benchmark which had prodded us into action on this subject, particularly bearing in mind that we had actually performed worse in that particular year than we had the year before!

The inclusive and special education review – a professional report

Although in July Lino Spiteri had pointed out to me that I could access the document on the government education website, I must confess that I failed to do so. But when parliament convened yesterday week, I was highly impressed by the hard-copy – which was, incidentally, designed and printed by the Salesian Press.

I read the whole report until late at night on the same day, finding its presentation fresh and innovative in the sense that it was at once technical but also user-friendly, particularly for somebody like the undersigned who does not consider social policy to be one of his areas of specialisation.

I read this report only days after a friend’s relative lobbied me as a parliamentarian to try and support the whole idea of public-parent partnerships in tackling the problem of disabled children, something which the study does frontally in para 7.5 when it touched in the most humane of ways upon the apprehension of parents over what will happen to their children when they are no longer able to care for them. As pointed out in the report, there are parents who, in spite of having limited means and being salaried employees, happen to be prepared to strive to put together the capital required to build a suitable group home “whatever the sacrifice that would involve for them”.

The Report 2005, which former minister and colleague Lino Spiteri seems to have ably chaired, was critical when it needed to be so but at the same time objective and forward-looking, by making specific and attainable proposals. The 66 submissions received seem to have covered the whole range from stakeholders such as students, parents/carers and teachers to learning support providers and NGOs.

It is a pity that, despite existing legal requirements, poor enforcement means that disabled students still experience difficulty in finding work.

I fully support the working group’s recommendation that a Standing Committee of the House of Representatives on Disability Issues should be established, although I doubt the practicality of having it chaired by the Speaker – even though I can very well understand the motivation that prodded such a suggestion, which is to mainly “reflect and confirm its inclusive national character and objectives”.

One other very valid suggestion made was that the job description of the human resources allocated to special schools should be sector-specific and correspond more to norms observable within the European Union.

It is only by putting some – or ideally all – of these recommendations into practice that we legislators will be demonstrating that we really believe that disability is a human rights issue.

The comparative summary of how these problems are addressed elsewhere in Europe proved to be an excellent backgrounder.

I personally feel that this report should be analysed in depth by the House Social Affairs Committee in the hope that it will pave the way for a revision and update, together with a consolidation of the existing legal framework. Well done, to all concerned!

e-mail : [email protected]

Leo Brincat is the opposition spokesman for Foreign Affairs and IT