MPs are to have the maximum length of their parliamentary speeches limited to 30 minutes instead of 40 minutes as at present.

Deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech said in parliament that the government had wished to limited the maximum time to 20 minutes but it eventually agreed with the opposition about reducing the time by 10 minutes to 30 minutes.

He said this measure would serve to reduce repetition and provide more time for debate in the House.

There will be exceptions to this general rule, such as with regard to the presentation of the Budget speech and the replies, as well as the first speech in reply when Bills are presented. 

Presenting a motion for various changes to parliament's standing orders, he said voting in parliament will be taking place on Wednesdays, thus making planning easier for all MPs.

He moved various other amendments on, among other things, days of sittings and quorum calls. The Opposition immediately protested that this was the first time it was hearing about them.

The sitting was suspended while the Opposition was given a copy.

When the sitting resumed, Nationalist MP Mario Galea asked for a postponement of a few days, or over the summer, for agreement to be reached by both sides. One could not have a situation where, while talks were held between both sides, the government suddenly pulled the rabbit out of the hat.

Mr Grech said that he had discussed everything with the opposition, but, it was true, not everything was agreed. Whatever needed to be said had been said and it was time to move on. Perhaps progress could be made during the debate.

Mr Grech then continued moving various other changes, including the setting up of a Petitions Committee to consider petitions received by the House.  The committee would, after a debate, decide whether to refer petitions to ministers, authorities, the House or a House committee. The committee will be chaired by a government MP and have a majority of government MPs.

In another amendment, it was laid down that ministers or former ministers would not sit on House committees discussing their area of responsibility.

Mr Grech said the government wished to achieve consensus in these changes.

He said other changes for the future could include a citizens' right of reply and a committee to vet nominations for appointments in important posts.  

At this point Mr Galea said that while the government had moved a motion to fine MPs €50 for every parliamentary day they did not attend, only four government MPs were in the chamber. He called for a quorum.

The sitting was suspended for a few minutes until more MPs made it to the Chamber.

DIFFERED DIVISION U-TURN

Mario de Marco, deputy leader of the opposition, said that while Mr Grech had said he hoped for consensus, the government side sometimes suffered political amnesia. Mr Grech had moved a number of changes which Labour, when in opposition, had strongly opposed.

Among them was the differed division. As proposed, whenever votes were requested, for a division or at the end of a debate, the voting would take place on Wednesday.

When a similar procedure was proposed in the past, when the (PN) government had a majority of only one MP and there was no agreement on pairing, Alfred Sant had said it was emblematic of fascism and undermined democracy.

Comments against such a measure had also been made by Owen Bonnici and Evarist Bartolo, saying it weakened the democratic institutions. So would they now vote for this change on Monday?

Mr Bartolo had said such a measure stemmed from division and lack of discipline in the government. So was that the state of the current government now?

Charles Mangion, Jose' Herrera, Michael Falzon and Anthony Agius Decelis had also protested strongly at the time, seeing it as undermining parliamentary scrutiny and serving as a rubber stamp.

Labour MP Carmelo Abela had said such a motion was the fruit of panic and discomfort within the majority. So was the government now in a panic and discomfort by having proposed the same thing?

Joseph Muscat, then Opposition leader, had said that this showed that the control of the country had slipped out of the government's hands.

Dr de Marco said most of the other changes proposed by the government would not serve to improve parliamentary proceedings, but to strengthen the government's hand.

What use was it to introduce a fine for absent MPs - with which the opposition agreed - while limiting voting to Wednesdays and changing the quorum call procedure? 

How was it that a government which said it wanted to give a voice to the people was actually reducing the speaking time for MPs?

The proceedings of the House would not improve by such changes, but by giving MPs more resources and by having more transparency by the government, not least in replies to parliamentary questions and through the publication of government contracts.

Dr de Marco then moved amendments to guarantee that the Opposition would be able to move private motions on alternate Thursdays, and that Prime Minister's Question Time would be held on Wednesdays.

 

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.