Editorial

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Anton Tabone, was right yesterday to appeal to members of Parliament to show greater respect to each other and to the institution. In what was probably the last Sette Giugno speech of this legislature, Mr Speaker also urged parliamentarians to show greater commitment to their parliamentary duties.

Unfortunately, though, his sounded more like a voice in the wilderness as he again appealed for belated reform of the House to come about.

With a general election round the corner, it has been on home visits, rather than House presence, that MPs have been focused on, and this can only become more pronounced. Also, exchanges in the Chamber, particularly during Question Time, have become more abrasive as tension rises.

It was during one such exchange that followed a quorum call by the opposition that the Prime Minister appeared to lose his cool the other day, warning the opposition that, in the same way that it had a right to make quorum calls, the government too had a right to insist that the rules were applied in equal measure to both sides. Therefore, he said, ministers would no longer reply to supplementary questions that were not related to the original question.

The point Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi was obviously trying to make was that the government would not tolerate what it views as being abuse of quorum calls. The MP who made the call, Joe Mizzi, said he had done so because, in his view, a minister was being arrogant in the way he replied to a supplementary parliamentary question.

The minister, Censu Galea, had argued that the supplementary question just put to him was not related to the original one. Mr Mizzi, however, insisted he was seeking information the minister was expected to know.

Dr Gonzi argued that once the supplementary question was not even related to the original question the Chair should not have allowed it.

A question begs itself here: Should it be Mr Speaker to decide what may or may not be asked of ministers in an institution, which has as one of its main functions the holding of the government to account?

It is true that far too often supplementary questions have been as related to the original question as chalk is to cheese. If and when that means rules are being broken, such practice would be wrong.

Yet, it would be the institution of Parliament that would be the loser. The House must be, and seen to be, the highest forum where the people's concerns can be raised and nothing can be more effective than during Question Time, when ministers can give an immediate reply. Hence, the call by various quarters, to introduce the Prime Minister's Question Time too.

Ministers know this and, to their credit, for much of the time they do reply to supplementary questions they would not have been prepared for. The opposition, too, should acknowledge this, in the same way it should appreciate that there might be instances when ministers may need advice before giving their replies.

Rules and practices, therefore, need to be clarified. There has to be some order in the way questions are put and how they are answered. All that, however, has to be done in the context of proper rules (all the rules, including the rules on quorum) and in full respect of the dignity of the institution of Parliament.

The opposition has a moral duty to ask questions, ministers have a responsibility to answer them, and the people have a right to know.