Parliament on Wednesday continued its debate on the procedural motion with members of both sides accusing each other of undermining parliamentary democracy and hindering the Select Committee from doing its work.
Joseph Sammut (PL) said any amendments to regulate parliamentary procedures had to take all aspects into consideration, being careful not to ridicule the institution by eating away at its own powers. The rights of the opposition had to be taken into consideration, when proposing such measures.
The decision of whether a vote is taken should not be at the discretion of the Prime Minister or one of the ministers. Otherwise the aim of parliament would be distorted, making it little more than the final rubber stamp, and there was the risk of doing away with parliament altogether.
Edwin Vassallo (PN) said that after listening to debates on the motion, he would rather have never heard them. He wished that parliament would be a model of gentlemanliness, and speakers always maintained a sense of responsibility, to emphasise the true value of politics, and keep people's faith in the system, which seemed to be diminishing. The people had to be drawn back to parliament, to show that they genuinely wanted the best for the people.
MPs showed that they cared little for what the people thought of their behaviour in parliament, as otherwise they would have been more careful of how they spoke about each other.The government had a duty to fulfil its electoral programme, he said, and this was what it was going to do. As it had been democratically elected, nothing should be allowed to impede it. The government had to strengthen political certainty, as workers and prospective investors would be the first to feel this effect.
Mr Vassallo said that in the 1996 legislature, a Nationalist opposition had granted pairing. However, when the Labour government of the time insisted on bringing Dr Fenech Adami, although unwell, into parliament to table a motion, the Nationalist opposition changed its mind.
This time, the opposition did not grant pairing, and this made the motion a necessity for the government to function well. The government had waited seven months before putting forward this motion. The government had a right to protect itself against opposition attempts to catch it on one foot. Such tactics were not in the national interest.
A survey by The Times portal showed a resounding majority which were against political parties receiving public funds: out of 1,905 only 19 per cent were in favour and a resounding 78 per cent were against. Political parties were losing their status, he said.
MPs should be aware of the importance of strengthening democracy. And of offering a service to improve quality of life.
Opposition whip Joe Mizzi said it was not acceptable that one used democracy to undermine the opposition and the minority.
He said that Leader of the House Tonio Borg argued that the motion emanated from the withdrawal of pairing. This was not the case and later he tried to retract it. The Prime Minister said that the Opposition had backtracked on its word. Again, he said, this was not the case.
Mr Mizzi said that the real reason for this motion was because the government has internal problems - and these were not with the motion against the extension of the St John's Co-Cathedral Museum. Trouble had started earlier.
He said that during a meeting of the House Business Committee on January 13, when discussing the procedure to be adopted when discussing amendments in committee stage of the rent reform Bill, the government side had suggested that all votes on the clauses are taken at one go. This was not the procedure and the opposition objected. It was here, he said, that a member of the government side had said that there would never be an agreement before the opposition agreed to pairing.
The only agreement the opposition had was that the discussion in second reading of the rent reform Bill would take January 26. The opposition did not break any agreement because it was the government which extended the debate.
When the committee chairman passed to the private member's motion, Mr Mizzi said he had indicated that the opposition had another one beside the one on utilities.
During the meeting on January 26 of the House Business Committee he had spoken on the opposition motion of St John's, which was presented two days earlier. The opposition wanted to ensure that this be debated on the following Thursday. He said it was the opposition's right and that's why he had moved that the House be adjourned to the following Thursday and the Speaker had ruled that this was not the practice as the business of the Hiouse had been agreed upon.
Mr Mizzi pointed out that it was ironical that in 1999 there was a similar request. The Prime Minister had insisted that the opposition had to have a seven day notice before a motion or bill were up for debate. This had been breached in 2002. Dr Gonzi had admitted he did not keep his word.
It was also the practice that the business of morning sessions ended at noon. But in 1999, Dr Gonzi had said that the business of the House ended at 9 p.m.
Mr Mizzi continued to give various other examples to prove the point that Parliament was being divested of democracy. He said the opposition wanted to safeguard its rights because Speakers were adopting two weights and two measures.
He said that there were instances that opposition motions were never brought up for discussion, citing two motions on buildings outside development zones. But the government was also ignoring its own members: a 1999 motion by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando against a cement factory remained on the shelf.
The Speaker had not ruled that there was a breach of privilege complaint when Mr Mizzi's family was attacked at home but then Mr Mizzi was found to be prima facie guilty of a breach of privilege when he said that he agreed with the word 'corrupt' in reference to a member. However, he was never brought before the committee.
Mr Mizzi said that the government did not care about democracy. All it wanted was to remain in power at all costs.
He referred to what he had to pass through as government whip in the 1996-98 legislature and said that nobody had told him that Dr fenech Adami was sick on the day he had to present the motion.
As to pairing, Mr Mizzi said that there was never anything official. It was just a non-binding agreement but Labour had always cooperated.
There was only one case when the opposition had declared it would not grant pairing and that was on the debate on the President's speech.
On calls for quorum, Mr Mizzi said that he had used this weapon to defend the citizens' rights and to make abuses and corruption known. Calls for quorum were used by Dr Fenech Adami, Dr Gonzi and Dr George Hyzler (former Parliamentary Secretary).
Dr Francis Zammit Dimech (PN) said the motion aimed at regulating Parliament so that it functioned efficiently. The government had an obligation to deliver its electoral programme, including participation in EU institutions. This obligation had to be safeguarded.
The government could never be subjected to the whims of the opposition. In calling for a case by case pairing, the opposition was exercising the right of veto on the government's participation in international fora.
During the current legislature, despite the absence of a pairing agreement, the government had chosen a labour MP as Deputy Speaker as had been the practice under previous legislatures. The government had seen that the Budget debate take place without creating any pressure on the opposition. On the contrary, the opposition had ignored the government's invitation to choose a Speaker from its own side.
While the government was still waiting for an indication from the opposition, the Labour whip Mr Mizzi, three weeks ago had asked for the adjournment of the House for Thursday instead of Tuesday. The main argument used by Mr Mizzi had been that the House had not yet adopted a procedural motion.
Dr Zammit Dimech declared that the government did not bring this motion forward because it wanted to reach agreement with the opposition on the parliamentary procedures to be adopted. The opposition's action showed that it did not want Parliament to function properly and wanted to determine the agenda.
The procedural motion did not interfere on how the members voted.
Dr Zammit Dimech denied that the motion was inspired by a lack of agreement among government MPs because the motion did not interfere on how members voted. The government had consistently strengthened Parliament with the setting up of the House Committees and the appointment of Parliamentary officials such as the Ombudsman.
Marie Louise Coleiro Preca (PL) said both the government and the opposition had been elected to assist each other, in the national interest. The previous week Parliamentary Secretary Mario Galea had declared that no matter what the opposition said, the Nationalist party was in government.
In the face of such statements, Dr Zammit Dimech accused the opposition of arrogance.
Even the premise of the resolution, she said, did not reflect the fact that they had been elected to work together. It claimed that it was time to update, and allow for the foreign commitments of the executive.
The motion did not focus on what was really needed to strengthen parliamentary democracy, and that was why a select committee was needed. The government was revealing that it really had both a political, and a democratic crisis. Its back was against the wall, and this was an attempt to do something.
Over the years, she said. the PN had undermined the parliamentary system. It would introduce taxes, without the proper discussion. In one case it even had increased court fees, through legal notices. This did not only go against parliamentary democracy but also against the human right to justice.
Utility tariffs had not even been debated in the budget. The government had argued these were not taxes, but this was merely playing with words. To the people they meant the same thing.
The government had spent all it had, not thinking that it might be re-elected and now everything was stalled. They were even removing invalidity pensions for people who really deserved it. The government insisted they were the champions of democracy, but ignored the opposition's vital role.
Issues such as the nominations of judges of the European Court of Human Rights, again showed how the government was not safeguarding democracy. The government made experience a pre-requisite, when the European Court did not. It would be a long time, therefore, before Malta could nominate a woman. This projected Malta as some backward country.
The government undermined democracy even in injustices such as promotions within the AFM. The Ombudsman report had shown this, and therefore the government criticised him, although they previously boasted of his office as their democratic achievement.
Concluding, Ms Coleiro Preca said it was a pity the government had decided to impede the Select Committee from functioning and appealed to the government to let it carry on with its work in the interest of parliamentary democracy.