'Motion undermines the spirit of the Constitution'

Labour MP Charles Mangion said yesterday that the procedural motion undermined the spirit of the Constitution as regards the separation of powers of the legislative, the judiciary and the executive. The Constitution sought to ensure that the executive did not have the free hand to do what it liked, giving the opposition the right to put checks and balances on the government through Parliament.

He said that during the last legislature a minister had boasted that the government was free to do what it liked because it had a five-seat majority. The situation had changed under the current legislature where the government had a one-seat majority with less than an electoral quota.

This situation had to be reflected and respected also in the House. Dr Mangion insisted that both sides needed to show reciprocal respect.

Although the House had the right to regulate its proceedings, it did not have the right to regulate arbitrarily. The motion set up a procedure which was convenient to the government, robbing the opposition of any checks and obliterating the net distinction between the executive and the legislative.

The tools at the disposal of the opposition were the calling for a division and quorum.

Speaking on quorum proceedings, Dr Mangion said that although the opposition put legitimate questions to ministers during question time, the ministers were continually avoiding answering such questions in due time.

Dr Mangion said that when he had requested the government to publish regulations controlling amusement and gambling machines, he had been denied an answer when these regulations had been finalised and could have been published through a legal notice.

The government was now extending the waiting time for a quorum from five to 20 minutes for the convenience of the government members.

Through deferred voting in divisions, the procedural motion was reducing Parliament to a rubber stamp of the executive. This went against the spirit of the Constitution and was contrary to parliamentary practice because it had the obligation to respect the Constitution in the approval of laws.

The motion was also against the treaty of adhesion to the EU when the European Parliament was being given more powers.

The government had moved this motion when the Select Committee was meeting on ways to strengthen parliamentary democracy. The motion itself was a transgression of democracy with the excuse that Parliament had to be adjourned to today's needs. It was the obligation of the Select Committee to find ways of how Parliament could work better. What the government was doing was to restrict parliamentary democracy, declared Dr Mangion.

As regards the government's commitments abroad, Dr Mangion declared that under the current legislature, the opposition had always granted pairing. The House Business Committee had always arrived at an agreement on proceedings. If the government was uncomfortable in respecting this delicate balance, it was going against the spirit of the Constitution, concluded Dr Mangion.

Silvio Parnis (PL) said that the opposition could not forget those people who had voted Labour and maintained that the general elections had been stolen.

The procedural motion was the result of the government's discomfort in running the show with its slender majority in the House. Before becoming an MP he had often wondered why, between 1996 and 1998, the then-Nationalist opposition used to make frivolous questions in a bid to overthrow the Labour administration with just one seat's majority.

To the Nationalists, Dom Mintoff had been all sorts of monster, but between 1996 and 1998 they had treated him as their hero. In contrast, Labour in opposition had always kept the national interests paramount in its dealings with the government.

Mr Parnis wondered how many Mepa applications had been approved, how many transfers had been made, how many refrigerators and computers had been granted and how many expatriate voters had been brought to Malta before the elections. But Labour would see to it that at the next elections its supporters would be given the same treatment as Nationalist supporters.

Past Nationalist administrations, as well as the current one, were well known for the way they ill-treated the people throughout a legislature but then became magnanimous just before the elections. One case in point was the water and electricity tariffs which were hitting the people so hard. He admitted that Labour had made a mistake in 1998 with its own new tariffs, but the government should not repeat the mistake.

Mr Parnis said he was not against expatriates coming to vote in Malta for very low prices and then going back, but it was the people who continued to live in Malta that were facing the new tariffs and other hardships.

He was not saying that everything about the procedural motion was bad, but the government should be careful not to tread roughshod over the opposition and the half of the population that it represented. The positive changes being brought about by the new Leader of the Opposition should not be taken to mean that the opposition would not speak up when it felt that things were being badly done.

The opposition was ready to work with the government in the country's best interests. The government should recognise the opposition's strength and treat it accordingly.

José Herrera (PL) said the motion was something the opposition, and he himself, disagreed with, from both a legal and a political standpoint.

The courts, where the judge had the final word, could not change their procedure, as this was the result of legislation. In Parliament, however, the Speaker, who presided, had the final word in cases of interpretation of Standing Orders. Contrary to court, where the judge was the court, the Speaker was not Parliament, as the members could vote against his ruling.

Criticising the motion, Dr Herrera said that the major power of Parliament was the inherent power to strip itself of its powers. Without exaggerating, he was not saying that this was what was happening.

By time, Parliament had strengthened its role, but over recent years this power had been used to weaken it.

One aspect where the powers had been drastically reduced was in the area of taxes. In general this was a parliamentary prerogative, but this was being delegated to the ministry or authority concerned.

One thing that Parliament had never yielded its powers on was its own procedures. The opposition chose to remain cautious about amending the Standing Orders, which had developed after so many years of experience. This motion, although not damaging beyond repair, was worrying, as it might leave a chain reaction of tampering with procedures, which were important because they created balance between the government and the opposition. Primarily they assured the opposition had the time, the opportunity and the power to scrutinise the government, in the national interest.

He said that when, in future, a Bill was being debated the Standing Orders could be changed to allow for only the shadow minister and one backbencher to speak. This had not been done yet, but it could happen, and this was worrying. At times when things had been far more tense, parliamentary procedure had still been scrupulously followed.

This motion, though subtle, hit at an aspect of the parliamentary procedure which was one of the most valuable tools of the opposition - the right to catch the government on the wrong footing by calling for a division or quorum. It was the opposition's way of keeping the government on edge.

Because the opposition had used this tool for the country's sake, and used it well, the government wanted to change the system.

The government, he said, had got to the point where it was considering Parliament as a necessary evil. The government was taking its MPs for granted, which was risky, as their votes counted as much as any others.

Parliament had been weakened as a result of its own actions, he said, as former Speaker Anton Tabone had noted and tried to rectify.

Parliament had to assert itself more when there was something which was not functioning properly.

Joe Debono Grech (PL) went into a recount of political events surrounding general elections in 1962, which he described as the dirtiest ever. No champion of democracy had protested about any of this.

Several MPs who had taken part in the debate were too young to remember those events. When Labour had come to power in 1971 there had not even been enough funds to pay the wages of government employees. During the struggle for independence the Nationalists had not only not defended the Maltese people but even sought to scare them into silence. Nationalist MPs kept speaking about pairing. Little did they know that there were times when Dr Joe Micallef Stafrace had had to be brought to Parliament in a wheelchair, or that Mr Salvu Privitera had to be taken from his deathbed to come and vote in Parliament while Dom Mintoff was fighting for Malta's rights and best interests.

When Labour had become involved in a serious dispute with Libya, the Nationalists had actually sided with Libya against Maltese interests.

Mr Debono Grech said it was not true that the Prime Minister had introduced his procedural motion only after Labour had refused pairing. It was the other way around, because Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat had announced the decision to refuse pairing only after the Prime Minister tabled the motion.

The PN in government was well known for the tricks it habitually resorted to in order to win general elections. It had resorted to jerrymandering and ordered no less than 26 recounts in the 1971 election. With 5,000 votes more than the Nationalists, Labour had had to endure all the stumbling blocks the Nationalists and their allies could think of.

Referring to the Archbishop's claim that he had come out against the St John's Co-Cathedral project in order not to divide the people, Mr Debono Grech said the people had never been divided over the project.

On the contrary, it was the Cathedral Chapter and the government side that had shown deep divisions.

Parliament was continually being cold-shouldered even in replies to parliamentary questions, with months on end of promises of later replies and then claims that the necessary information was still being collected. Nationalist MPs had never rebuked their colleague who had arrogantly said that with a majority of five seats the government could always get its way.

It was part of Maltese history that in the 1970s the Nationalists had tried to lure Gozitan MP Angelo Camilleri to cross the floor and bring the Labour government down.

Dom Mintoff had long been criticised as wanting to eradicate feasts and fireworks, but now that the EU had made some noises there were people who were organising seminars on how feasts should be organised.

Disrespect of Parliament had even gone so far as a Nationalist MP attacking Labour's deputy leader Anton Buttigieg with a battery lead in the 1960s.

If the people were not careful, Labour supporters would find themselves thrown back to the fascist times of the 1960s. Fascist methods were also in evidence in how the government now wanted to run Parliament.

Nationalist administrations had repeatedly deceived the people, such as the latest case regarding the number of people being laid off from STMicroelectronics. With the tactics it kept resorting to, the government was in no position to speak about true democracy.

Joseph Sammut (PL) said Parliament was being divested of its powers, and one should stop to take stock of the current position which risked Parliament becoming simply a rubber stamp.

It was disquieting that certain very important legislation was being approved away from the House, even though this was being done following a delegation of the House's powers. Lack of dialogue cut people off from essential considerations. It was time for Parliament to seriously discuss what powers MPs were being left with. The House needed more time and resources to consider legislation in greater depth if each MP was to really represent the interests of the people.

There were times when an MP asking about local council activities in relation to national matters was left without a meaningful answer because local councils were autonomous. This was tantamount to playing around with procedure.

Dr Sammut remained in possession of the House.