Noisy exchanges in Parliament

There were noisy exchanges with name-calling of “coward” and “ignorant” among members of Parliament during yesterday’s sitting. The House was discussing the Budget Measures Implementation Bill.

The opposition’s spokesman on local government Stefan Buontempo took the government to task for allocating only €1 million to local councils to regenerate 200 buildings in housing estates. His tempo so increased that at one time, Deputy Speaker Ċensu Galea drew his attention that whoever was listening to the direct radio transmission might think he was addressing some 50 MPs when there were only half a dozen present.

The next speaker, Nationalist backbencher Edwin Vassallo, chided Dr Buontempo, saying that when the Nationalists were in power expectations were higher than when Labour ruled.

As former Labour MP Joe Debono Grech took the floor, he asked whether Mr Vassallo knew what the situation had been when Labour was elected to power in 1996. There followed loud exchanges with names being called. Eventually, Mr Vassallo left the Chamber with Mr Debono Grech asking him to stay and hear what he had to say.

Mr Speaker Michael Frendo called for order and the rest of the sitting passed uneventfully.

Dr Buontempo said that the ministry’s approach to local councils was superficial and curbed their initiative. A concrete and holistic plan was needed to bring about transparency in the councils’ responsibilities and to enhance coordination with government departments, which had too much power but lacked an obligation to support them.

The government must see that human, material and financial resources were used in the community’s best interests. Residents and communities must see results.

Dr Buontempo said the government did not have local councils at heart. Local councils were called upon by the government to administer only one per cent of the central government’s expenditure. The government had failed to strengthen their structures to enable them to offer a better service to residents.

He said the government wanted to retain control over funds.

The local councils contended they were not respected by government departments and authorities, and Dr Buontempo called upon the government to stop viewing them as parish councils. It should look at councils as mirroring the central government, by giving them responsibilities and a voice to effectively serve the community.

Councillors were an example of volunteerism at its best. They worked without payment and yet the government only partially financed their activities, thereby forcing councillors to seek sponsorships.

Local councils did not truly provide a one-stop shop, and although this had been promised by the government in last year’s local council reform, residents were still not provided with this service.

While residents could pay their utility bills at the local councils, they could not file their complaints on these services with the councils.

Dr Buontempo criticised the community development scheme and the common parts maintenance scheme launched by the government, saying that when one considered the amount voted for these schemes, their introduction could only be considered as “nice talk”.

The housing estates included persons who, in the 1960s, had been without adequate housing and the Labour government had provided them with a roof. He described the majority of persons residing in 8,000 units developed under housing estates as being Labourites. Yet he questioned how far €560 for each unit could go towards ensuring the maintenance of common parts and embellishment of the surroundings in housing estates.

The government had 1,209 buildings and was only budgeting €1 million a year for the next six years, and expecting that 200 buildings be maintained every year. Dr Buontempo said local councils were being expected to maintain the common parts with only €5,000, and criticised the government for taking residents of housing estates for a ride.

Speaking after Dr Buontempo, Edwin Vassallo (PN) asked the House to consider not only the €1 million for maintenance of housing estates a year but also the cost of building such estates, which was generally financed entirely by the government.

Mr Vassallo said that the Budget must be considered in the light of the economic crisis, and that in assessing it one must consider that the government was helping the economy to move along. He advised caution and prudence especially when Malta moved from speaking of the failure of banking institutions to the failure of European economies.

The government had managed to retain employment sustainability.

He criticised the opposition for transmitting false messages through the use of discouraging words when speaking about the Budget.

Mr Vassallo said that the opposition continuously shot down the goals as proposed by the government by saying that these were unreachable. The opposition highlighted failures without appreciating successes and did not speak of the creation of jobs and the retention of employment.

Malta would be worse off if the opposition’s proposals were to be followed.

Mr Vassallo referred to the work of the Social Affairs Committee on poverty and social exclusion, and said that the government had not hidden these problems but exposed them and provided proposals and solutions. Social poverty led to financial poverty, and economic choices would be made easier if MPs were conscious of the values they wanted to protect.

Mr Vassallo said that while he agreed with the aims of the extension of maternity leave, one needed to consider the cost of such a measure, not only financially but also socially.

Mr Debono Grech’s speech, as well as other contributors, will be published tomorrow.