TMIS Editorial: The misuse and under-use of Parliament
Parliament will soon be rising for the summer recess.The last week has seen the two sides bickering over a Wednesday sitting that was not held, with the Opposition crying foul and the government replying that all is in order. Wednesday is a normal pa
Parliament will soon be rising for the summer recess.
The last week has seen the two sides bickering over a Wednesday sitting that was not held, with the Opposition crying foul and the government replying that all is in order. Wednesday is a normal parliamentary day, the Nationalist Party charged, and there was no reason why the sitting should be cancelled. The Labour Party contended that the PN had agreed to not have a sitting on Wednesday, while the PN later insisted that the PL was too concentrated on its internal issues to give importance to the national interest.
It’s a similar situation to the one we experienced before the elections were held. That time, Parliamentary sittings were suspended on 15 May, with the Opposition saying the government had gone back on its word that sittings would have been held until 22 May. We were right in the middle of the election campaign and days before former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat was to be charged in court, along with others, following the conclusion of the magisterial inquiry into the now-rescinded hospitals’ deal. It was suggested that the early suspension was a way for the government to contain the fallout from the hospitals’ magisterial inquiry.
As is to be expected, Parliament offers itself as a platform where, apart from exchanges of ideas and legislative work, there are also political clashes as both sides try to take advantage of prevailing circumstances to score political points. Last Tuesday, for example, a sitting in which Prime Minister Robert Abela gave a statement on the preceding week’s European leaders’ summit in Brussels, was converted into a verbal boxing match with European Parliament President Roberta Metsola as the focal point – with Abela declaring that he will never speak against her in EU circles and Opposition Leader Bernard Grech telling him off as being “hypocritical” given the way he (Abela) and the Labour Party have often attacked Metsola and most of what she does in her role.
It must be pointed out that much of the legislation that is brought forward for discussion in the House of Representatives is approved without polemic. It is often the case that the two sides by and large agree on the bills that are presented, and they go through with a few amendments here and there that make the legislation as watertight as possible. But then, when it comes to controversial issues, the government and opposition find it easy to attack each other.
There are also several issues related to procedure that cause friction between the two sides and, in this regard, the government uses all its power – which it has because of the majority it holds. In this legislature, the PL has a nine-seat advantage (including Rosianne Cutajar, who now sits as an independent MP but still supports the government).
For example, it was two years ago, soon after the election, that the Opposition submitted several proposals for the government’s consideration – these included the introduction of a Prime Minister’s question time and more sittings dedicated to motions presented by the Opposition, which currently stand at one every three to six months. The letter with the proposals which the Opposition sent two years ago was not answered, much less debated.
But the government is not only ignoring the Opposition. It is also ignoring the Speaker who, time and again, has suggested changes which would improve the way parliament functions. These suggestions, which Anglu Farrugia has invariably made during his speech for the 7 Giugno commemoration, are disregarded year in, year out.
This year, in a speech that was “lost” amid the election hype as it was delivered right on the eve of voting day, Farrugia mentioned the need to include advertising guidelines for ministers and parliamentary secretaries within the code of ethics that the Executive has to follow. This was a suggestion initially made by the Standards Commissioner.
He also recommended that the reports compiled by the Ombudsman are discussed either in plenary sessions or at least in one of the parliamentary committees. Farrugia also put forward the idea, not for the first time, that citizens are given a right of reply when they feel offended by MPs who abuse their parliamentary privilege. This privilege is there for MPs to be able to speak freely without fear of prosecution, but when it is used to attack individuals who are not members of the House the latter should at least have some form of redress.
The government has little interest in pushing these ideas forward. The reasoning is that A PM’s question time could only serve to put extra unwanted pressure on the head of government; reports compiled by the ombudsman often expose government shortcomings or wrongdoings, and having a discussion on them would only add fuel to the fire; and including more ethical rules for ministers and parliamentary secretaries is not something that the government wants to see implemented, given also its bad track record in this regard.
As it always does, the government does everything it can to sweep its problems under the carpet. But this does not mean they will go away.
Related
Share this page
Guest Posts by Easy Branches
