The Labour Party has its reasons as to why it has not agreed to pairing arrangements in Parliament.

Pairing is normally granted by an opposition to allow government MPs to be on official duty abroad, or for other important personal reasons, and this is done to allow for a smooth flow of parliamentary procedures.

In the current term, the Nationalist Party enjoys a one-seat majority, which basically means that if just one government MP is missing and a vote needs to be taken, he or she would need to be paired by an opposition member for the vote to go through. This, of course, has added pressure on the government each time a vote needs to be taken. A one-seat advantage is not much.

For various reasons – which are not the subject of this editorial – the Labour Party has decided not to grant pairing arrangements to the government in this term. Some say this was a justified move, others do not agree.

However, the Labour Party should be more careful when it comes to making use of its prerogative not to grant pairing arrangements.

Last week, an extraordinary parliamentary session was scheduled for Thursday – Parliament normally meets between Monday and Wednesday – to conclude the debate on the electoral amendments, an issue that needed seeing to quickly considering that the European Parliament election is only a month away.

The session had been scheduled some time before, but when an emergency conference on the swine flu cropped up following the recent outbreak of the phenomenon, the PN asked for Mario Galea, who is responsible for national emergencies, to be paired. The PL refused, offering other dates when the vote on the electoral amendments could be taken. This was, however, turned down by the PN, with the result that Mr Galea could not attend the conference that was held in Luxembourg. In what was a ministerial meeting, Malta was represented only by the Director of Public Health, who was not able to participate in the discussion.

By not having a government official attending the conference on an issue that is creating global concern as the number of known countries (and cases) where the illness has hit continues to increase, Malta gave the wrong idea that it was not taking the matter seriously – when in fact it is.

And, even if this was not the case, Labour should have seen beyond the dispute it has with the PN over parliamentary procedures, and sought the national interest first.

Malta should have been represented by Mr Galea at the said conference, and Labour would have scored a political goal if it had agreed to pair him because of the extraordinary circumstances of the case.

As it happened, Labour are being perceived as trying to put spokes in the government’s wheels on an issue that deserves to be given the importance that it deserves. After all, Malta should take all the necessary precautions – and be seen to be collaborating with other European countries – to control this potentially-fatal disease.

By saying that the PN played a partisan game by not accepting Labour’s proposal for the vote to be taken on Friday morning – when the PN was holding a conference marking the fifth anniversary of EU membership – the PL committed another mistake.

First of all, why did it not suggest Friday evening? Was it because it was holding its May Day activity?

Secondly, it must also be remembered that the PN recently accommodated the PL by doing away with a parliamentary session that was planned for Monday 30 March just because the Labour Party wanted to organise a mass meeting on the eve of Freedom Day.

Labour should have understood the importance of the Luxembourg conference. We’re not saying that it is wrong in not giving the PN a pairing agreement, but it should not be doing it at the expense of the national interest.