Labour MP Alfred Sant told Parliament yesterday that in a democratic framework, the government was living a lie.

Speaking on two motions setting up two separate select committees - one on assisted procreation and the other on the re-codification of laws - Dr Sant said the government had shown no respect for parliamentary governance when this was supposed to be the fulcrum of democratic institutions.

The government was planting parliamentary debates to suit its political exigencies. The time-table for parliamentary discussion on the Budget was made in such a way that it would be impossible for the media to follow the debate on the motions closely and with interest. This was another sign of how the government had devalued Parliament during the last few years.

Parliamentary work and contributions by members had been hidden in the parliamentary committees set up over the last few years and had not been given credit because people did not know what was happening.

Dr Sant criticised Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg on his introduction to the debate on the motions, adding that Dr Borg had been artificial when he said that reports by other parliamentary committees on assisted procreation had been inconclusive. The government could have presented a Bill and included amendments according to how the debate progressed.

The select committee set up to consider the re-codification of laws was not the best mechanism to tackle the issue. Why did the government not wait for the conclusion of the political process reform before setting up these select committees?

Dr Sant said that for the first time since Independence the government did not have an absolute majority. Its relative majority had been acquired through the votes of residents living abroad.

The government was using Parliament to try to calm the exigencies of its backbenchers. At least it should have offered the chairmanship of one of the two committees to a Labour MP when these committees did not require extra finance or were not politically controversial.

Dr Sant said the Prime Minister was inconsistent: at one time he had vehemently attacked the Mepa audit officer for criticising a sentence by the Magistrates' Court and at the same time, he had heavily criticised the highest European Court. In a modern democracy every citizen had the right to criticise any court.

The government was using illegitimate means to pacify its parliamentary group as much as it was also illegitimate in criticising the Mepa audit officer and the tactics it was using to undermine Parliament.

Concluding, Dr Sant said GonziPN was not really committed to strengthening democracy.

Carmelo Abela (PL) said that the government had decided on the proposed select committees without consulting the opposition, even if it was in the process of regulating parliamentary procedure. The opposition was more mature than the government as it had not threatened the work of Parliament, choosing instead to be constructive and responsible.

If the government had consulted the opposition, decisions would have been taken without unnecessary debates. The people should not feel detached from Parliament, and the government should carry out consultations in an open way.

When debating illegal immigration, the opposition had suggested the setting up of a select committee to focus on the problem and to report detailed findings. The suggestion had been rejected and the government had said that it would be better that the Social Affairs Committee conducted such work.

Interjecting, Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici said that the government had taken the opposition's suggestion and modified it.

Continuing, Mr Abela said that the opposition preferred a select committee to tackle the illegal immigration issue, as it would have been its only focus.

Using the same reasoning, the opposition could have said that the select committee on assisted procreation should also have gone to the Social Affairs Committee. But it was important to take good decisions as these could give hope to certain families. The lack of regulation in the area was morally and ethically incorrect.

The select committee on the codification of laws should ensure that laws were simpler and understood by the people.

Government Whip David Agius said he could not understand how the opposition could criticise the way the government was treating the House, when it had tackled 12,500 parliamentary questions. If ministers must be present during question time, so should the Leader of the Opposition.

On a point of order, Opposition Whip Joe Mizzi said Dr Muscat was present in the House for the majority of sittings.

Continuing, Dr Agius said he had his own views. On his part, whenever there was something that involved the Prime Minister, Dr Gonzi never failed to be present and take all the questions put to him.

Dr Agius said he knew first-hand the experience gained by serving on standing committees. Opposition MPs could bear this out too. But the opposition sometimes tended to be inconsistent on the necessity of standing committees.

Why should the government be taken to task for wanting to involve as many MPs as possible in parliamentary work?

Dr Agius said Malta had over 500 laws, some of them dating back to 1939 and carrier pigeons, and a lot of work was needed to knock them into shape. This was why it had been felt necessary to have a select committee for the codification of laws.

As for the select committee on IVF, he said it was high time for Malta to legislate on such an important aspect of modern life. But why did the opposition never come forward with suggestions on laws? Its job was not to warm the seats and oppose for the sake of opposition. It must be a proactive opposition with its own ideas.

The House must use new methods to move forward, so there should be no doubt that the decision to set up the two select committees was a sound one, and if anything, more select committees needed to be set up.

With the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty, there would be much more work and involvement for national Parliaments. It was impossible to expect all parliamentary work to be done in plenary sessions.

Dr Agius said it was important that in future the opposition should come up with its own suggestions for the setting up of other select committees, even keeping an ear to the ground to understand the wishes and feelings of the people.

Noel Farrugia (PL) said one had to do away with any differences and perceive Parliament as an institution where both sides could forge an alliance, as the Leader of the Opposition had proposed.

He was concerned and disappointed that Malta had slipped to 45th place in Transparency International's 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) from 36 last year, because this showed that Malta was now synonymous with corruption.

All members of the House should rise in unison to condemn the fact that Malta had slipped down nine places on the corruption index. He was sure the issue was also of concern to the Prime Minister because it harmed Malta's image.

He augured that under the guidance of Mr Speaker, every member would carry his or her responsibilities and speak honestly, devoid of any political propaganda.

Labour MP Michael Farrugia said he could not believe his ears on what was happening in the House, with some trying to deceive it. The opposition was accused of being destructive. He recalled events leading to the rent laws reform and the proposals presented by the opposition before and at the time the Bill was being debated in the House.

Dr Farrugia said that whatever political work the opposition did was with the help of volunteers.

It had no Attorney General or other legal teams to help against payment, as the government did. This should be appreciated, rather than having a government MP saying the opposition was always being destructive.

The rest of Dr Farrugia's speech will be carried tomorrow.

The opposition's opinion, expressed in the House or in private meetings, of how a particular Bill could be made better or how a particular issue such as illegal immigration could be tackled, was part of what made Parliament strong. It was anything but destructive, and anything said to the contrary was insulting.

It was the opposition itself that had suggested a select committee on illegal immigration, but the government had voted against on the pretext that there were already existing set-ups to cover the issue.

Whenever the government resorted to short-circuiting tactics such as guillotine motions, this sowed great doubts about its respect for Parliament and the opposition's rights to have its motions freely discussed.

In Malta, IVF had been practised for several years without any form of regulation. During the previous legislature the House Social Action Committee had heard several experts and come up with a report that had never been published. Now, in this legislature, another edition of the SAC had heard more experts, including one who had already appeared before the previous SAC.

The second SAC report this time had been laid on the Table of the House.

The committee had also made recommendations about sexual health, but in the Budget for 2010 the government had elected to ignore it completely. The real problems of sexual health were out on the streets, with sexually-transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and countless other issues.

Over and above the SAC report, there was a lot more to explore on IVF. This was why the opposition was adamant that select committees should be chaired by the Speaker or, in his absence, by the Deputy Speaker so that their decisions could have more weight. This would also do away with the absurd situation wherein a committee member could not ask a minister for a copy of the report which he would have had a hand in drafting.

Anything said by anybody answering the SAC's questions should be evaluated on facts, without extra weight being carried by the person's identity.

The opposition fully believed in IVF, regulated by a law which could block any wrongdoings and provide full information to whoever was interested in taking this course of action.

Concluding, Dr Farrugia said Mater Dei Hospital had had the necessary equipment for IVF lying dormant for two years. Public access to IVF should not be a question of money, and everything possible should be done to fully safeguard the mother's health.

The debate continues.