Traffic is one of those problems that cannot realistically be solved within the confines of a single legislature.

Governments and Ministers may change, and priorities may shift, but decisions taken on transport today will shape how people move around Malta for many years to come.

It is against this background that the Nationalist Party has proposed a Parliamentary Select Committee on Traffic Reduction and Sustainable Mobility.

Its suggested structure is notable: three government members, three Opposition members and the Speaker as chair.

The committee would also hear from experts, authorities, local councils, transport operators, businesses and members of the public, while examining data ranging from journey times and public transport reliability to parking and road closures.

An arrangement giving government and Opposition equal representation would be unusual in the present parliamentary context, as government normally expects its majority to be reflected in parliamentary structures, and it remains to be seen whether the government would accept the proposed three-three composition.

The PN itself acknowledges that the committee's precise composition and terms of reference would ultimately have to be established through a joint parliamentary motion.

That detail should not, however, obscure the broader question raised by the proposal: whether Malta can establish enough political agreement on transport to pursue a strategy that survives electoral cycles.

Traffic policy is particularly vulnerable to short-term thinking.

Major transport projects, changes in mobility patterns and decisions about public transport, parking, road use and alternative modes of travel can take years to plan, implement and produce results.

Measures introduced during one legislature may only begin showing their full effects during the next.

Continuity is important, and if one administration develops a long-term transport strategy only for a future government to abandon or substantially reverse it, Malta risks going back to square one, while congestion continues to affect commuters, businesses and communities.

Cross-party agreement does not mean eliminating political disagreement.

Government and Opposition will inevitably differ on particular measures, priorities, costs and methods, and government ultimately retains responsibility for implementing policy.

Nor should a parliamentary committee become a substitute for decisions that need to be taken by those elected to govern.

What a structured process could provide, however, is a common factual basis from which those disagreements can take place.

The PN proposal envisages both sides having access to the same transport data and hearing evidence from the same experts and stakeholders.

That could at least help distinguish disagreements over policy choices from disagreements over the nature and scale of the problem itself.

There is precedent for Parliament establishing select committees to deal with particular issues, although the proposed composition and subject matter would give this initiative its own characteristics.

The important question is therefore not simply whether the PN proposal is accepted exactly as presented.

Government and Opposition now have an opportunity to discuss how they can work together on transport in the long term, including the committee's composition, remit and responsibilities.

If three members from each side is unacceptable, that need not bring the wider discussion to an end.

Traffic will remain a challenge beyond this legislature and the next election.

Whatever mechanism is eventually chosen, Malta's long-term transport direction would benefit from sufficient common ground for essential policies to survive changes in government, while leaving room for political differences over how those policies should be delivered.