Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has turned down a call by Opposition leader Simon Busuttil for postponement of a vote on changes to parliament's rules.

Dr Muscat said the two sides had been in talks since 2014 and although the vote should go ahead in parliament this evening, talks between the two sides could still continue and further changes could still be made in the future.

Earlier, the deputy leader of the opposition, Mario de Marco, said the changes moved by the government were only cosmetic and would not bring about increased parliament's efficiency or strengthen the people’s voice.

He said that while the Leader of the House, Louis Grech, had spoken of the amendments bringing about improved efficiency, he could not see what efficiency was being gained when votes would not be taken on the day they were called, but three days later.

And the Opposition’s voice was not strengthened when the previous Standing Order allocating an Opposition Day on alternate Thursdays was being replaced by one day every three months for every private member, meaning any MP who was not a minister.

Dr de Marco protested that whenever a ministerial statement was presented, the reply was being limited to 10 minutes. 

He said the only positive change was in the introduction of a Petitions Committee, something which the Opposition had originally proposed.

Dr de Marco said the Opposition was proposing that Thursday sittings should alternate between the government and its MPs, and the Opposition and its MPs. The Opposition Day would stay, even when the government did not take up its own.

The Opposition was also calling for the introduction of Prime Minister’s Question Time on Wednesday sittings, another measure which would also improve democracy.

Dr de Marco said the efficiency of Parliament would improve when MPs were given better facilities to carry out their work, and when the government was transparent and did not fear scrutiny, as evidenced by the fact that it did not publish public contracts.

Replying, Tourism Minister Edward Zammit Lewis said the changes would bring about increased efficiency because the House would have more time available to debate the people’s concerns. The changes needed to be seen in their totality.

He felt that a 30 minute speech by an MP was more than enough, and reducing 10 minutes from the former 40-minute limit did not mean a denial of any right. Anyone who could not say what he needed to say in 30 minutes had a problem.

Other parliaments had shorter speaking limits, allowing more time for other debate.  

He said that the government’s plan was that where the government and the opposition agreed, changes to procedure would be made in Standing Orders. Where there was disagreement, procedure would be regulated by a procedural motion which would be binding only for this legislature. 

On the time being allocated for replies to ministerial statements, Dr Zammit Lewis said he did not know of any statement taking more than 15 minutes, and the time being provided was ample for any reply.

Dr Zammit Lewis hailed the introduction of the Petitions Committee. Ordinary people would be able to file petitions, which would be vetted by the Speaker and discussed in the committee. 

Referring to the call for Prime Minister's Question Time, Dr Zammit Lewis said that in Malta, the prime minister  was open to scrutiny in every parliamentary sitting. It was a system which worked well and should be retained.   

Regarding the Opposition Day, Dr Zammit Lewis said the government was not saying that the Opposition could only move business three times a year - business was regulated in the House Business Committee where agreement was usually reached on the agenda of the House. 

And, he insisted, MPs on the government side should have as much right as the Opposition MPs to move private business.

The minister said MPs would continue to have the right to call votes, but regulating the time when the votes were actually held would lead to more order and make it easier for all MPs to be present, especially when they were occupied elsewhere because of their profession.  

CALL FOR RESUMPTION OF TALKS

Opposition leader Simon Busuttil said the amendments moved by the government reflected the way how it wanted to control everything. It was seeking to tighten its control over parliament, in the same way it has tightened control over most of national institutions which were supposed to be autonomous, the exception being the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General who were under constant attack.

This was a government which had started the legislature with a nine-seat majority, yet it was making it easier for ministers to stay away from the House, and voting was being restricted to once weekly.

The way how the government was acting was contrary to the transparency and accountability it had promised.

The Opposition was proposing decentralisation of power and greater scrutiny by having, for example, major public appointments made subject to parliamentary approval. But the government was postponing a decision.

Rather than increase parliament’s powers of scrutiny, the government was narrowing them.

An example was how the Opposition day every other Thursday was being replaced by one day every three months when Parliament was sitting.

The government’s attitude betrayed the people and added fuel to those who were losing confidence in politicians, Dr Busuttil said.

He called for the vote on these changes, due this evening, to be put off so that more talks could be held between the government and the opposition.

PRIME MINISTER REPLIES

Replying later, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said talks with the Opposition had been ongoing since 2014. The aim was to achieve as wide a consensus as possible.

Agreement was reached on several points, such as the imposition of a €50 fine for MPs who were unjustifiably absent from sittings, and on the setting up of a Petitions Committee. It had also been agreed that ministers would not be part of the Public Accounts Committee when it discussed matters which fell under their responsibility, as used to happen in the last legislature.

Dr Muscat explained that the Standing Orders would only be amended in areas about which both sides agreed – in line with longstanding practice.

However the government was also moving a procedural motion for the other points about which they had not agreed.

However these points did not all favour the government. For example, at present, owing to an anomaly in Standing Orders, the Opposition Day on alternating Thursdays could not be taken up if the government did not take up its own day the previous Thursday. This could last for the whole legislature.

But now, at least every three months, both sides of the House would be able to take up their day, independently of what the other did.

Dr Muscat said he did not agree with the Opposition leader that this debate should be suspended for further talks. They had spoken long enough, the vote should go ahead, but talks could still continue, in which case the procedural motion would be changed again.

Dr Muscat said he was surprised that Dr Busuttil had said that the fine for absent MPs would not apply for ministers. The fine, he insisted, would apply for all MPs, including ministers, except when they were absent for justified reasons such as official business or illness. Dr Busuttil had said ministers should attend parliament, not overseas travel. Was he saying they should not attend EU ministerial meetings? Not even Farage said this, Dr Muscat said.

The government's amendments were approved at the end of the sitting while the Opposition proposals were defeated.

 

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.