Labour MP George Vella told Parliament yesterday that the Prime Minister's procedural motion should never have been discussed in the House's plenary sessions. Its place, he said, was in the Select Committee, formed last July to strengthen Parliament, transparency, accountability and the Constitution.

Dr Vella said the government needed to reflect more on this motion because it was inventing new rules, showing that it was arrogant and a "danger to democracy".

Earlier, Beppe Fenech Adami (PN) said the opposition was confusing the principle of checks and balances. In no way was Parliament to be used to hinder the executive. But the opposition seemed to expect the right not only to check the executive, but also to subject it to parliamentary whims. The executive, which was chosen by the people, should be permitted to carry out its work without undue obstructions.

One of the two main reservations the opposition seemed to have about the motion was that in some way it threatened the principles of democracy. Dr Fenech Adami said the opposition was not in a position to give lessons on democracy, considering its past. The PN, on the other hand, was synonymous with democracy.

It was not true that the government had tabled the motion because it was in a state of panic, as claimed by the opposition. It was simply the result of the government's enthusiasm and energy. The government had wasted no time in working on its various electoral promises, putting into action the rent and educational reforms. The motion ensured that it was not held back from fulfilling what it had been elected to do.

Concluding, Dr Fenech Adami said the opposition was persistent in saying no to the government, while the government was determined to fulfil its promises.

Dr Vella referred to Dr Fenech Adami's remarks and said that the threat to democracy had been brought about in 1971 by the then Nationalist opposition, which had tried to bribe two Labour MPs to topple the Labour government.

In the 1980s, Nationalist MPs had boycotted Parliament for two whole years and during the 1996-98 legislature, the Nationalists had withdrawn from the pairing agreement so that Labour ministers would not be able to attend to government business overseas.

Referring to the motion, Dr Vella said that the quorum was established under the Constitution. The opposition made use of the quorum to lengthen debates when it was treated unfairly as was the custom in Australia, Canada and even in the US Congress. The PL was not contrary to a 20-minute waiting time for the quorum, but members should stay in the House and not leave immediately thereafter.

Experience had shown that although the parliamentary committees had been fruitful, the essence of parliamentary debate was watered down. Unfortunately during question time, not even enough ministers were present to answer supplementary questions.

Dr Vella maintained that once the government had granted pay increases to ministers, they had to perform their parliamentary duties correctly.

The Labour MP said that pairing did not form part of the Standing Orders. The House of Commons did not recognise pairing because it was a concession which one side acquired as a result of negotiations with the other. No one could expect this as a right.

In 1998, the Nationalist opposition had withdrawn the pairing agreement on the pretext that the Leader of the Opposition had not been shown respect. The truth was that the government did not know, and had not been informed, that Dr Fenech Adami was ill.

Dr Vella declared that during the present legislature the opposition had always given and would continue to grant pairing when required in the national interest.

The Labour Parliamentary group had been unanimous in its decision not to hinder the government's business in the EU and in international fora. Whenever there was the need, the pairing arrangement worked. Whenever there were EU ministerial meetings, the opposition always respected the pairing arrangement and would continue to do so - something which had not been extended to him when as Foreign Minister he had had to travel abroad.

Dr Vella warned that if the government used Parliament as a tool, it would be making a mockery of democracy. The government did not want Parliament to function well because it did not want scrutiny, which was very important. The government was managing by crisis and was uncomfortable. Under the Constitution, the government was responsible to Parliament.

When the Public Accounts Committee had discussed the Voice of the Mediterranean issue, the government representative had not only criticised the Auditor General but accused him of being prejudiced against the person appearing before the committee. Another glaring case was the fact the government had reactivated Malta's participation in the Partnership for Peace programme when this did not form part of its electoral manifesto, and without any parliamentary debate.

Speaking about the procedure to be followed when a division was called, Dr Vella said that one could not compare the House of Representatives with the European Parliament, which was much larger and was structured differently.

On deferred division he said that this existed in the House of Commons for certain types of motions. The present motion referred to each call for division. The motion did not provide for divisions to be taken when a debate was held on a Thursday.

In conclusion, Dr Vella quoted Dr Austin Sammut, writing in The Times, that what the government was doing was "a terrible mess".

Charlo' Bonnici (PN) said that some months ago the Prime Minister had told the Leader of the Opposition that politics was not a game. Unfortunately, it seemed this advice had fallen on deaf ears. The opposition persisted in dealing with the pairing issue as it wished, at the expense of the national interest.

It was the national interest that had led the government to present this procedural motion, which did not hamper democracy in any way.

As the opposition persisted in the pairing game, it became apparent that it believed this was a weak government, which would collapse at the slightest jolt.

The opposition seemed to believe this government was weak because there was discontent with projects in the pipeline and with the new utility tariffs, and because it had only a one-seat majority. This was not the case, and nobody was being penalised for not being in line with what the government believed in. The Prime Minister remained open to all forms of opinion, even those coming from within his own government. This was why the motion about St John's Co-Cathedral, put forward by the opposition, was a mistake, because it was based on false assumptions.

He said the opposition could never topple the government.

Many of the Prime Minister's initiatives, such as offering the opposition the role of Speaker and Deputy Speaker, the "no strings attached" opportunities, the chance to set the agenda and to have a Prime Minister's question time, showed that this was a party which put national interest first.

The recent decision to nominate someone from the opposition for President, contrasted heavily with the Leader of the Opposition telling the Prime Minister that he could forget about a pairing agreement.

Like the rest of the world, Malta was facing challenges as a result of the global slowdown, and this meant that concerted efforts had to be made to safeguard and create jobs, as well as the tourism sector. These efforts had to be made even in the international fora, and a negative attitude would hinder this success.

Concluding, Dr Bonnici said that he hoped the opposition would open its eyes to the situation and work in the national interest, because the people could again put their trust in it only if it did this.

Gino Cauchi (PL) said that the motion was denying the opposition the chance to fulfil its duty. Although it was necessary to update parliamentary procedures, why was it necessary to do away with the opposition's right to call a division?

Dr Gonzi's recent declaration, that he was the Prime Minister, he was the government, and that Labour had lost the election and was therefore in the opposition, did not automatically mean that its position had to be downgraded. The question was whether the government wished to have Parliament functioning as it should, or whether it wanted to abolish the role of Parliament.

Mr Cauchi said he believed this had always been what the PN had in mind, and many factors confirmed this.

The importance of Parliament under a PN government had decreased drastically. Another case the opposition had often lamented about was the government's habit of putting off answering parliamentary questions, sometimes even by eight weeks.

It was no longer true to say that the government could do as it wished because it had a five-seat majority, as Dr Gatt had said. After the last election this was not a stable government.

The motion even aimed to reduce the rights of the opposition when it came to calling a vote. Mr Cauchi questioned whether the government trusted its members, or if it felt the need to ensure they toed the party line when voting.

The fact that the government was making it easier to form a quorum, when there was not the required number of MPs, showed that the government was trying to ensure it remained in a position of control. This motion had come after government promises that parliamentary procedures would give members more respect and resources.

So far, when executive members had gone overseas, pairing had always been granted. The truth was that this motion was because the opposition wanted to debate issues of national interest in Parliament, such as that of the St John's Co-Cathedral museum. As the government was not unanimous on this issue, it had avoided debating it and instead proposed this anti-democratic motion.

People were already realising that this was a move by the government, aimed to reduce the power of those meant to represent them. The people knew that the government is unstable and has problems. The opposition was voicing what it believed in and it was not prepared to sit back and watch the country deteriorate. This motion was not in the country's interest.

Helena Dalli (PL) said the Labour government had shown its democratic credentials when it had moved the constitutional amendments so that a majority of votes could be translated into a parliamentary majority. Democracy had been threatened when Minister Austin Gatt declared that the Nationalist government had a five-seat majority or when the PN general secretary insisted on obtaining data about people from ministerial offices.

Labour governments had always sought authority as a means to an end to push forward their programme to better the standard of living, and not as an end in itself to retain power.

Under a Labour legislature, the Nationalist Opposition had undermined governability when it voted against a tourism Bill which was an exact replica of one proposed by the former PN government.

Despite the offers made by the opposition to put up a national front on such issues as the Drydocks and ST Microelectronics, the government had arrogantly wanted to go it alone. Although the government had shown friendship on the nomination for the President, whose powers were very limited, the government appointed Nationalist supporters in positions of trust and control.

Ms Dalli accused the PN of stealing the election through false promises and personal favours even on the day of reflection preceding election day. This was a mockery of democracy.

The Prime Minister should provide information on the qualifications of two officers in his office who were collecting personal data on every citizen. She said she wanted to be sure that these two people were not PN canvassers.

On the procedural motion, Ms Dalli quoted Dr Guido de Marco who, in the debate on a procedural motion presented by a Labour government, had said that the situation was not a normal one and that it was a mistake when the exception became the rule. This, she said, applied to today's situation.

Dr de Marco had also remarked that the motion should not have been moved so that ministers could go overseas, adding that such a motion was going to create serious problems. She again insisted that this fully applied today.

Parliamentary Secretary Mario Galea accused the opposition of hysterics. He said the constitutional amendments had come about after the PN had passed through very hard times with the murder of Raymond Caruana and the incidents at Triq tal-Barrani.

The PN had a right to govern because although it enjoyed a slim majority it had been elected in a free election and had an agenda to follow over a five-year period. It was not true that the government was in crisis. The government had an obligation to legislate but also to attend to EU and other international meetings.

Just after the election, talks had been held in Minister Tonio Borg's office on pairing and the Prime Minister's question time, and the opposition had always said it could not give an answer before a new Labour leader was elected. Although a year had passed, no pairing agreement had been reached and suddenly the opposition had presented the adjournment motion. He said that the government had paid a price with its supporters in nominating George Abela for President.

The opposition had promised the electorate a new political season, but had then withdrawn pairing and presented different points of order in Parliament. He denied Alfred Sant's allegation that the procedural motion was a fascist manoeuvre. The truth was that Dr Sant had again failed to convince the electorate.

Through the procedural motion, it would still be the House to decide. The government had a right to govern and to implement its electoral programme. The opposition was still intransigent and trying to hinder the government, Mr Galea concluded.

The debate continues.

At the start of the sitting, the House unanimously approved the Ombudsplan, which was debated in the House Business Committe.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.