Government Whip Mario Galea
Parliament resumes this evening. What is the schedule for the coming weeks?
The Housing Authority financial estimates and the bill on the Voluntary Organisations Act will be discussed first by Parliament. However, a date is being set for this week so that the House Business Committee can meet to examine the Ombudsplan. This outlines the main objectives and medium-term work of the Office of the Ombudsman. After that, there are other bills in the pipeline.
Are there any controversial or thorny issues to be debated this year?
I do not think there are any particular hot issues at the moment, but these are bound to crop up at some point. The House has always been home to controversy and thank God for that, otherwise parliament would be boringly dull. I have no doubt that some hot issue will materialise.
When will the debate on electoral districts be held?
I cannot give you a definite answer because the parliamentary group has still to discuss the matter. The debate in parliament depends a great deal on what has been discussed between the parties. There appears to be consensus, especially with regard to Gozo.
Are you satisfied with Parliament’s work in 2006? Is there anything that could have been done differently and for the better?
Parliament has been very busy enacting legislation. The workload has greatly increased since Malta’s accession to the EU. There are so many documents to be examined and so much work to be done locally and abroad that I sometimes struggle to find enough MPs to send abroad on assignment.
This problem is more acute on our side because Cabinet ministers are excluded from the bulk of parliamentary work, which is done by backbenchers. The opposition, however, can count on its entire parliamentary group. MPs do their own research and our staff complement is not sufficient to meet the demands imposed by parliament. I feel that parliament is under-staffed and the part-time clerk and secretary given to each side of the House are certainly not enough.
Personally, I would like to see the introduction of Prime Minister’s Question Time, when the Prime Minister would spend half-an-hour a week answering questions from MPs. I would also like the opposition to have the opportunity to set the agenda once a month. This initiative does not enjoy broad consensus and even though the government has the power to introduce these two measures by simple majority, we feel that there should be prior agreement between the two sides.
We also need to change the standing orders on how and when a quorum is called. It is unacceptable that a quorum is called to disrupt a parliamentary session simply because a member is not satisfied with the minister’s answer. We have had as many as 10 quorum calls last year.
The House of Commons in the UK changed its quorum rules so that one is called only when a vote is to be taken. I believe that our House should adopt a similar procedure. The rationale behind a quorum is to safeguard against the manipulation of parliament by a handful of parliamentarians and not as a tool to disrupt.
I must point out, however, that there is a lot of cooperation between the Whips.
In 2003, then Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami called for an improvement in the quality of debates and speeches in the House. Have you seen any improvement since then?
Speeches have improved, although the standard depends very much on how prepared the speaker is. Setting a 40-minute limit to speeches in parliament has helped to improve the quality of speeches, although I feel that 40 minutes is still too long.
Many people are gearing up for what could be an election year. How will this “election mode” affect Parliament’s work?
You can expect fewer MPs in the house, as many will be busy making house visits during their election campaign. The same campaign could be dragged into parliament and that is something that we should avoid, because partisan politics can only harm the House.
Partisan politics should be left outside and the House should be used for objective discussions and debates.
Should MPs become full-time employees?
In my opinion, yes, parliament needs full-time
members. When you work part-time, the results are that of a part-time approach to the job. Parliamentary work and political commitments take up the bulk of an MP’s time and, in effect, they are doing a part-time job on a full-time basis.
Opposition Whip
Joe Mizzi
Parliament resumes this evening. What is the schedule for the coming weeks?
The government, and not the opposition, sets the agenda for Parliament. As far as I know, this week we will be discussing the bill on Voluntary Organisations Act, amendments to the Civil Code and Courts of Justice and the financial estimates of the Housing Authority. The House Business Committee this week should also meet to discuss the Ombudsplan for 2007.
Are there any controversial or thorny issues to be debated this year?
I don’t expect anything controversial to be discussed, although there should be some controversy with regard to the Parliamentary Accounts Committee. The opposition will continue to put forward its views through its policy papers and vision statements, especially when an issue being debated in the House has already been dealt with in one of our party’s statements.
And the debate on electoral districts?
There should not be any controversy, because both parties appear to have reached broad consensus on the issue.
Are you satisfied with Parliament’s work in 2006? Is there anything that could have been done differently and for the better?
Absolutely not! On the outside, people have the perception that everything in running smoothly. However, laws that have been enacted have a lot of defects and MPs are starting to lose enthusiasm. A typical example would be the Foreign Affairs Committee.
They have piles of documents to review – in particular on European affairs – and the committee gives the impression that they are well-versed in all of them. But this is not the case – just look at the work done on the Maritime Policy Green Paper. It is obvious that they do not have the know-how on each and every topic. Yet, they carry on as if the subject is as easy as ABC.
Do you think the quorum procedure should be amended?
I call a quorum every time I feel that democracy is threatened. I have always explained why I have made the call and I certainly do not use it abusively.
It is a measure to counter the arrogance of certain MPs who think they can rule out the opposition simply because they are sitting on the government’s side.
The episode involving (Investment, Industry and IT) Minister Austin Gatt when he proposed carrying out his plans without any regard to the opposition just because, he argued, that the government has a five-seat majority, is a case in point – this was a serious threat to democracy. Such incidents are unacceptable, because the opposition represents a sizeable part of the electorate.
In 2003, then Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami called for an improvement in the quality of debates and speeches in the House. Have you seen any improvement since then?
Some MPs have improved but others have not. Some still come to Parliament unprepared, and this applies to MPs from both sides.
Many people are gearing up for what could be an election year. How will this “election mode” affect Parliament’s work?
An election campaign has a huge impact on Parliament. I have been the MLP’s whip since 1989 and during an election campaign MPs are busy with house visits. Hence, fewer MPs are expected to attend parliamentary sessions. This takes its toll on their level of preparation, particularly during Question Time.
During these campaigns the government side always tries to speed up parliamentary work to catch up with its contacts with the electorate. The opposition will be more prepared because it will have listened to constituents during the door-to-door sessions.
Did this happen during the 1998 election when the MLP was in government?
No, we were very strict with House attendance and our MPs followed our instructions. I am very strict in seeing that the party’s instructions are observed.
That particular election came about following a controversial issue and it was different to other elections before and since.
Should MPs become full time employees?
No, I don’t think we need full-time MPs. We do not need to follow the model used by larger countries but that adopted by smaller countries, whose MPs are part-timers. What we need to do is make sure that MPs have all the facilities and support to do their work efficiently.