Two Labour MPs, Carmelo Abela and Evarist Bartolo, yesterday warned that the work of the Select Committee - to strengthen Parliament, transparency, accountability and the Constitution - could be prejudiced if the government did not withdraw the Prime Minister's procedural motion, thus giving a sign that it was interested in reaching agreement on a number of issues.

Mr Bartolo said that the motion was undermining confidence between the two sides. But the worst example, he said, was the leaking to The Sunday Times of a story on party financing in a bid to put Labour in a bad light.

Mr Abela said it would be a dark day if the government took over Parliament. On the contrary, there was the need to discuss how Parliament could remain relevant and stronger.

Earlier in his speech, Mr Abela said the country had other priorities which the House should discuss, including the increased utility tariffs, the loss of jobs or workers on four-day weeks.

Through its new leader, the opposition had given many signs it was ready to cooperate with the government on national issues such as ST Microelectronics and rent reform. This was a far cry from the way the then Nationalist opposition had treated the 1996 Labour government which had a clear mandate to govern with a one-seat majority but with many more votes than the present Nationalist government, which also had a one-seat majority.

Mr Abela said that, although the government had a right to govern, the opposition also had the right to oppose where it deemed necessary. One had to look for consensus on national issues. Such was the case on the nomination for the President. But this was being dampened with the procedural motion.

The government could have shown its sincerity if it had offered the position of Speaker to be filled by a person chosen by the opposition from outside Parliament. The way the government was to govern should have reflected the electoral result. The attitude adopted through this motion was to the contrary.

Mr Abela said the Lisbon Treaty emphasised the need for more parliamentary participation in decisions taken by the EU. The government should not use Parliament as just a rubber stamp. A lot needed to be done for the Maltese Parliament to remain relevant.

The procedural motion did not reflect this need. According to it, the discussion on clauses in committee stage had to be suspended when a vote was requested. Mr Abela claimed that the motion attacked part of the work undertaken by the Select Committee and therefore asked whether the government still believed in the work carried out by the Select Committee. When the government suggested that Parliament meet on Wednesday mornings, it was ignoring that MPs were also employees and had other commitments.

Justice Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici said the pairing issue was evidently a tool in the opposition's hands, which it used as it deemed fit. Despite various meetings and attempts to come to a conclusion, it seemed the opposition was determined not to come to an agreement because this might be interpreted as weakness on its part.

The Leader of the Opposition had gone on record twice as saying that the government could forget about pairing. The chances that this attitude would change were slim. Therefore, the government had to do something and it was presenting a well-thought-out proposal on how Parliament should function. Experience had proven that pairing was either granted immediately, or it simply never happened.

The procedural motion was well timed. Had the government wanted to take the opposition by surprise, it would have done this at the beginning of the legislature. In no way was the government trying to maintain control over the opposition; it was simply taking the necessary steps for the government to function.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said trips abroad were not made capriciously, but there had to be the freedom to set meetings with confidence. Having to change meeting dates was a sign of political instability. Many countries aspired towards the political stability that Malta enjoyed.

Dr Abela had spoken of the need of keeping updated, something which had often been debated but remained in the air. Then when the government tried to do something, it was accused of trying to control the opposition. This was not right.

Concluding, Dr Mifsud Bonnici reiterated that the motion was necessary. The government had waited for the opposition to make its stand known and now it was time to close this chapter. The government was being cautious, attentive as well as ensuring moderation. It had allocated a lot of time to debating the motion, but for as long as pairing was refused, it felt duty-bound to do something else.

Anthony Agius Decelis (PL) said that the procedural motion conditioned parliamentary democracy because MPs would not be free to vote on a motion or Bill when discussion ended. Did one want a Parliament which the government used as a rubber stamp?

The government had already shown a lack of respect towards Parliament when it decided that Malta should resume its participation in the Partnership for Peace programme without consulting Parliament, and when this participation did not form part of the government's electoral programme.

Mr Agius Decelis called for the strengthening of democracy. The reasons quoted by the government side on the motion did not convince anyone.

The opposition had not entered into any contract on pairing with the government. The procedural motion was not the way forward when it proposed that the vote be taken on particular days so that ministers and MPs could go overseas at whim.

Mr Agius Decelis said that the message being transmitted was a negative one. He again called for the withdrawal of the motion which, he said, smelt of fascism by adopting the attitude that those who were strong could do whatever they wanted.

The opposition had the moral obligation to defend itself against a restricted democracy. The government had lost its credibility and the trust given by the electorate. The 1960s Gonzi version was not democratic at all, and one had to ask what the present-day Gonzi version was when it sought to restrict democracy.

Philip Mifsud (PN) said the opposition claimed that the motion was the work of an arrogant government. If the government wanted to be arrogant, it would have proposed this on the opening of the legislature last May.

Back then the opposition had refused to grant pairing, and for the first time Malta was not going to be present at a Euro-Med conference. Instead the government had first tried to see the attitude of the opposition. Ultimately, the motion was inevitable, despite various attempts by opposition members to stop it.

When the government had extended the hand of friendship to the opposition, and offered it the chance to choose the Speaker, this had been turned into something the government was doing for its own advantage. Still, the Deputy Speaker had been appointed from within the opposition, despite the fact that pairing had not been granted.

The opposition said this motion was contaminated, but in his opinion the air had really been contaminated by the negative attitude taken by the opposition.

The people had chosen the government, and it had a right to govern. But, more than that, it had a duty to do so as it also had to fulfil its international duties. It was true enough that it was the right of the opposition to decide on pairing, but then it was the government's duty to keep functioning in the most fluid manner possible, as it would be doing.

Evarist Bartolo (PL) said the procedural motion rendered Parliament impotent and weakened its autonomy. While the envisaged Lisbon Treaty strengthened the role of national Parliaments across all EU countries, the Maltese government wanted to use Parliament as a rubber stamp.

The government had ignored Parliament on how the EU budget for Malta between 2004 and 2013 should be spent. Other countries had involved their Parliaments on the setting of priorities for spending such funds. The government had undermined parliamentary democracy and introduced passiveness.

Offering the role of President and Speaker to the opposition became only symbolic when the motion strengthened the idea that the Nationalist Party had identified itself with the state, taking over public offices which had real authority and which were effective.

Mr Bartolo said that at the beginning of the legislature, the government had promised a government for everyone, but then it had reneged on promises of transparency and accountability. One had hoped that the Select Committee was a tool for finding a new way forward, but the government was not seriously interested in effecting change.

The motion undermined the trust in the Select Committee when it had a very difficult task. It was obscene for the government to leak a story on party financing to The Sunday Times with the sole aim of showing the PL in a bad light. There was no goodwill on the government's part for the Select Committee to move forward.

Mr Bartolo claimed that the government's motive behind the motion was to counter the lack of discipline among a number of ministers and nationalist MPs. The motion showed that there were serious cohesion problems within the Nationalist Party. The government was mistaken in using Parliament as a tool to counter such a situation.

The country needed a Parliament which held the government accountable. The government was not treating Parliament fairly, as was the case in the Public Accounts Committee where information requested was not given and where the Ombudsman and the Auditor General were heavily criticised by government members.

Mr Bartolo said that as a result of the elections last March, the country could have moved in a different direction when the government had to acknowledge that it had less than a 50 per cent majority.

The government could have accepted the hand of friendship extended by the new Labour leader to collaborate on national issues such as ST Microelectronics, the shipyards and the effects of global recession on the Maltese economy. He said the government was not interested in moving in this direction because it wanted to demonise the Labour Party as being negative.

Instead of instilling a spirit of friendship and cooperation, the procedural motion sought to divide. This went against the spirit expressed in the President's speech at the beginning of the legislature.

For the PN, the PL was to be relegated to the role of a supporters' club. The government had no sacrosanct right to a pairing agreement. The Labour opposition was doing nothing more than what the Nationalists had done in opposition between 1996 and 1998.

Concluding, Mr Bartolo said that despite the efforts of the government to hinder Parliament from scrutinising government's work, the opposition was obliged to check the government. The motion failed to address new challenges which needed a new political culture and a new parliamentary role. The debate continues today.