A Parliament that bites

As the newly-elected Maltese Parliament prepares to convene early next month, is it not time to engage in a serious discussion on the role and powers of the House of Representatives in our democracy?

Although I have never been a member of our national Parliament, my experience in the European Parliament has alerted me to some stark differences between the two.

Some are to be expected and accepted. Others not quite so.

For instance, one of the first things that struck me in Brussels was the high level of cooperation of my group with the Socialists. On many occasions we reach compromises and vote in unison, striking an unassailable two thirds majority in the Chamber.

Perhaps it is the system, perhaps it is the context but I do find that this level of cooperation in the European Parliament is more qualitative and constructive than what we are used to in Malta. And there is a lot that we can emulate in this respect.

Opposition for opposition's sake is not constructive and, ultimately, backfires on those who persist in it. The opposition in Malta should know that by now.

The role and powers of our national Parliament are ever-changing. Already after EU membership, some 80 per cent of the laws that it approves owe their origin to the EU. The scrutiny of EU law and its transposition into national law is already taking a great deal of time. And with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on January 1, this will increase although national parliaments will also be called upon to take a more direct role in the EU law-making process.

Are we gearing up for this? Or is our Parliament ill-equipped to take on this new role? And, more generally, is our Parliament sufficiently strong to scrutinise the workings of our national government as would be expected in a vibrant democracy?

The new government is bound by an electoral programme which makes a clear reference to the role of Parliament and the need for review. It states that: "With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which Malta has just ratified, the Malta Parliament is evolving into a structure which is more deeply engaged in the EU decision-making process. It is time for the Maltese Parliament to be strengthened and its resources increased. In this way, we shall continue to strengthen democracy and transparency".

This is a welcome statement indeed as it demonstrates the readiness of the new government to deal constructively with an effective Parliament in the interests of democracy.

The question is how can we translate these words into concrete action.

Here are my views:

First, let us start with a thorough debate on a review of the workings of Parliament from its procedures and working structures straight through to its resources.

Then, let us adopt a review of the working structures of the Chamber, including the office of the president (Speaker), the standing committees as well as the permanent secretariat and staff at the Chamber, to ensure that they are functioning as they should and supported with adequate resources.

Then, let us assign to Parliament its own budget, allowing a margin of discretion over its internal use and allocation to be determined by the Chamber itself. Clearly, the budget should be substantially increased if the Chamber is to truly live up to its tasks.

On the issue of resources, the difference between our national Parliament and the European Parliament could not be more stark. Not that one would expect them to be the same. But the difference ought to be bridged somewhat.

Whereas members of the European Parliament are afforded substantial resources to organise an office, recruit assistants and perform their duties, I see no comparable resources granted to national members of the Parliament in Malta.

The result is that members of the European Parliament are perceived to be more effective than members of the national Parliament.

Even on remuneration, how long shall we go on expecting members of our national Parliament to concentrate on their parliamentary job if we continue paying them a measly €14,000 (Lm6,000) per annum, which is 10 times lower than the their best-paid counterparts in Italy?

Of course, one may choose to keep things as they are. It would avoid a public outcry on parliamentary pay and it might also serve the government to have a weak Chamber. But a Chamber that is starved of resources is also starved of ideas, of energy and of action. And it is a poor reflection of our democracy.

If we want to strengthen our democracy and if we want to strengthen transparency, we need a stronger Parliament. And if we want a stronger Parliament, we must give it the tools with which to work.

Readers who would like to ask questions to be answered in this column can send an e-mail, identifying themselves, to contact@simonbusuttil.eu or through www.simonbusuttil.eu.