PN mum on whether its MPs will have free vote
Today, Parliament is scheduled to discuss the opposition's motion on the controversial underground museum proposed by the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier.
It is still unclear whether the Nationalist Party's parliamentary group will be given a free vote when the motion asking government to withdraw its support for the underground museum proposed by the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation is debated in Parliament today.
PN parliamentary whip David Agius yesterday was non-committal, insisting he could not say what was discussed in the parliamentary group. "You'll have to wait until tomorrow (today)," he said.
The PN is facing open dissent on the project with at least three MPs speaking against it.
It was the environmental group Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar that first asked for MPs to be given a free vote on the matter.
On Sunday, PN general secretary Paul Borg Olivier refused to answer when asked whether the party would be giving its MPs a free vote.
He simply insisted that the Opposition Leader's motion had to be defeated because it was "dangerous" and could set an "ugly precedent" because it meant the government or Parliament could interfere with the process of allotting EU funds.
The motion, presented by Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat, calls on the government to "intervene immediately and withdraw its support for the project as proposed".
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi is expected to move an amendment to Dr Muscat's motion, which seeks to give a signal that, where necessary, Parliament should be able to scrutinise major or sensitive projects.
However, the amendment is also expected to emphasise the importance of not interfering with the planning processes and that such a project should be monitored by the planning authority.
Whether the amendment will be enough to allay fears of a mini rebellion among PN backbenchers still has to be seen.
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Jesmond Mugliett and Ninu Zammit have gone on record expressing disagreement with the proposed museum. The foundation wants to extend the co-cathedral's museum by excavating new exhibition space under the street and square in front of the cathedral.
The project was awarded almost €14 million in EU funds, which would be supplemented with another €2 million from the foundation's own money.
Even though the formal development application was submitted to the Malta Environment and Planning Authority in January 2008, the project had been on the cards for almost two years.
The minutes of Mepa's cultural heritage advisory committee of two separate meetings held in October 2006 and August 2007 highlight the dangers the excavation works could pose to the cathedral itself.
During the committee meeting held in 2007, the committee said that "any excavation in the immediate surroundings of the cathedral is extremely dangerous to the structural stability of the cathedral itself and the proposal is therefore not acceptable".
The committee also noted that the "sacred nature of the cemetery should be safeguarded and respected" insisting the proposed uses were not compatible with the important historical and religious nature of the site.
3 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
V Fenech
Feb 11th 2009, 17:43
Prosit Lawrence!
And now, how can Simon Busuttil convince us when he attacks Labour on an unexistant fee?!
lgalea
Feb 11th 2009, 14:20
Chris Staff
If they don't obey their parties they will be whipped by the party whips.
Chris Staff
Feb 11th 2009, 10:29
So what penalties are imposed on MPs who vote against the recommendation made by their (political) party?
Aren't MPs meant to represent the people, rather than their party, in parliament? So what sort of democracy is it if the party in government, who always has a majority of seats in parliament, "instructs" its MPs to vote one way rather than another - usually without consulting the very people they are meant to represent?
Voting a party into power should not be carte blanche for the party in government to do whatever it wants for five years. Isn't is time we had continuous democracy, instead of "democracy" once every five years?