To debate or not: That is the question!

The Labour opposition seems to be regressing to its former parliamentary policy of bygone years of calling a quorum every five minutes during proceedings. Last week, we had no fewer than 10 quorum calls in one-and-a-half hours in one particular sitting. Labour had applied this strategy of disrupting parliamentary procedure for the five years preceding EU membership, as its way of trying to halt parliamentary proceedings on the way to membership. Although I think that such strategy was childish, there was a concrete objective to that action at the time, which was physically stopping Malta from joining the EU. Well that objective failed not only because it was childish, but also because joining the EU was an objective good for Malta and the Maltese people understood that common good.

Today, however, in the present political and social milieu, what is the logic behind such manoeuvres in Parliament? Is it in Labour's interest to continue to stop or limit parliamentary debate?

The opposition often complains that there is not enough time to discuss legislation and then they squander two or three sittings in a week following calls by the whip or some other parliamentarian. Does the opposition want to debate or does it not? We are often reminded that membership of the EU has meant a lot of committee and plenary work in Parliament. The government is making every effort to work with the system, but does the opposition want to work or not?

Parliamentary work does not imply that all members have to be present in the Chamber for the whole sitting all the time. It implies, however, partaking in standing committee meetings, meeting constituents, participation in radio and television programmes and a million and one other social and cultural commitments. The Labour Party should know because there is hardly ever more than one member of the opposition present in the Chamber of the House at any one time. Their behaviour is disrupting the committee meetings too. Do they want to have committee meetings or not?

I have frequented parliaments in many parts of the world. Parliamentary debate should be allowed to progress unfettered, with all members of the House having the time for their appointed say. In all parliaments the people in the Chamber are usually three, the speaker on the legislation being debated and his corresponding alternate from the opposition and the Chairman of proceedings, in our case the Speaker of the House or his substitute.

In a particular debate last week, the government backbench members who tried to speak on a particular law had their speeches cut to fetters. They were, in fact, not allowed to exercise their proper right to criticise the government, which is also their job. When a quorum is called, the five minutes allotted for the quorum are reduced from a speaker's allotted time of 40 minutes. If during a speaker's speech, four or five quorums are called; the speech is cut to ribbons and ends prematurely. Is this what Labour wants in parliamentary debate? This is a highly undemocratic exercise besides making Parliament a laughing stock.

Let us be mature on this; it is time for the Standing Orders governing quorum to be changed if irresponsible individuals are not to be allowed to make a mockery of our highest institution and of democracy. The Speaker, as many others, was definitely not amused with this type of behaviour.

In many parliaments, the quorum call is restricted to the time a parliamentary vote is taken and this to ascertain that enough representatives are voting on a particular issue. Although the majority in Parliament has the right to change the Standing Orders unilaterally, I have always believed that these would have no real merit unless they are changed with the consensus of all involved. Labour must remember that one day it might be in power and then things might be different for it too.

Dr Asciak is a Nationalist member of Parliament.