The longer we take to accept this irrefutable fact of political life the fewer MPs there will be participating in plenary sessions and the fewer political observers there will be tuning into frequency 106.6FM to follow parliamentary debates in the evenings. Some blame it on European Union accession, others on the dearth of bills on the list of Parliament’s agenda which is getting shorter and shorter by the month. It seems that the government is struggling to keep Parliament on a life support system.
Labour whip Joe Mizzi, at adjournment time some weeks ago, spoke about “a crisis”. He wasn’t really far off the mark. My friend Joe is the type of man who, love him or hate him, calls a spade a spade and, although not exactly versed in the art of diplomacy, he is straightforward, disciplined and uncompromising as his role demands. Ask me about the man when he calls to warn me of an impending division! Well, the honourable whip was only relaying what many MPs, on both sides of the House, have been privately giving vent to since April 2003 as the great divide between the politically charged chambers of yesteryear and the tame content of legislation of today becomes more visible and palpable with the passage of time.
His counterpart on the other side, honourable Mario Galea, tried his oratorial best to neutralise the truth with a remarkable reply days later. You see, in politics you can disagree with content but admire the style. Thank God Joe and Mario are not like some of those MPs or ministers who stammer rather than speak and contribute to the general malaise and boredom. Mario’s task was however far more difficult as it had the disadvantage of trying to persuade his own backbenchers, if not ministers too, that all is well in Malta’s legislative powerhouse.
Some fault for the current state of parliamentary affairs rests with the Executive. It is the government’s responsibility to conceive and initiate legislation and frankly there hasn’t been much of it. Even the quality is far too inferior to what we were accustomed to have in previous legislatures, particularly the last one when the government was pumping into the plenary bills related to European Union accession. With the European issue then still wide open it was a joy and a challenge to participate in plenary debates. They were truly exciting times for all MPs who used to go on rampage for parliamentary time.
The government’s current failure lies in the fact that it has not managed to transform the role of Parliament in the new European reality. In my introduction I spoke about Parliament’s character changing. Indeed the problem is that it is not being allowed to change at all because it is up to the government to make the changes and it is simply staring at them.
As long as we think that we can carry on with the traditional format in the new reality there will be no new spring in Parliament. It is evident that the pivotal role the plenary session (second reading) used to play in the past is fast diminishing and very soon it will be the committees that will prevail. The longer we take to adjust, the more Parliament will look like a hollow building devoid of parlance, rhetoric and sense.
Truly, there are efforts lingering in the background. The government’s idea to grill a particular minister for a whole session at question time is good. But then is the government prepared to answer all questions, including those related to the expenditure of ministries and government-owned entities which it currently refuses to do by the silliest of excuses that they are a waste of time? Instead of grumbling on the opposition’s perceived lethargy to react to the proposed changes, the Executive would do well to come clean on all parliamentary questions rather than hide behind a veil of secrecy and unaccountability where politically convenient. Is a minister’s prerogative to dismiss questions utterly greater than the taxpayers’ right to know in detail how their money is spent? What is necessary are real changes not fictitious ones.
The committees? Well this is where the debate, in my opinion, has to shift. I took part in some sessions of the new committee dealing with the funneling of EU legislation and regulations particularly those touching upon justice and home affairs. I felt like I was rubberstamping a fait accompli. Except for maybe the minister concerned, or rather his experts, nobody seemed to know what exactly is going on. The system must change. You simply cannot deal with tonnes of laws and regulations with outdated practices. By the time they are splashed on the table most of them have already been overhauled in Brussels.
I patiently await the creation of a Justice and Home Affairs Permanent Committee. The House cries for one. I have been travelling to Brussels for years participating in seminars and conferences of the Justice and Home Affairs Committees of the National Parliaments of member-states pretending to belong to one in my country which does not exist. With crime on the increase, no matter how petty the Deputy Prime Minister insists it is, with irregular immigration a national problem falling on deaf European ears, and with some European legislation on civic rights perilously playing with the traditional limits of fundamental human rights, it is high time Tonio Borg pens the creation of a Justice and Home Affairs Committee high on his agenda.
The minister will remember that Labour leader Alfred Sant had called for a Permanent Committee on security issues in 2001. Subsequently a sitting was held under the auspices of the Committee on Social Affairs but everything stopped there. The irregular immigration debate and the drugs debate on sharing were successful experiences at the Social Affairs Committee, particularly the latter, and it has helped to defuse political tensions on the subject and strike convergence as we will see very soon. But they were issues that should have been debated at home – in a Permanent Home Affairs Committee.
Though I have reservations on how Dr Borg handles some issues in his portfolio, I have always respected him for his parliamentary acumen. As a good parliamentarian, which he is, I trust that he will rise to the challenge and do it.
Dr Gulia is opposition main spokesman on home affairs