It was bound to happen sooner or later.

The Labour Party was ready for it, prepared for the occasion with care, and the Nationalist Party fell into the trap.

It came as the country is still debating the controversial issue regarding the parliamentary honorarium and whether it is right for ministers to receive it over and above their ministerial salary, and whether the honorarium itself should be increased. The issue is being discussed in the House Business Committee after the government backtracked on a previous decision that was taken two years ago.

At the first possible chance, seeing that the House of Representatives was practically empty, with no ministers present, Labour whip Joe Mizzi called for a quorum. The statutory 20 minutes passed and the Speaker, Michael Frendo, had no other option but to suspend the sitting and adjourn the House.

It was yet another victory for Labour as it tries to add fuel to the flames it had ignited in the way it chose to attack the government’s “insensitive” decisions on the honoraria. Labour’s onslaught won it popularity and support, and the only way the government could reply was to say that the PL knew about the move, as parliamentary transcripts subsequently published have shown.

But the political points had already been awarded to Labour, and I am sure that even when the matter is resolved to everyone’s liking (we are already two weeks late on the schedule proposed by the Prime Minister), Labour will still refer to the time when the government chose to raise the income of ministers “behind the people’s back”. Attempts by the government to say “but you knew about it too” will be too feeble to make an impact.

Before the honoraria issue erupted, I had dedicated one of my columns last November to criticise the disrespect that Members of Parliament show to the highest institution of the land when they do not attend parliamentary sittings. This followed a news item carried in this newspaper’s sister daily, which said that only eight MPs had been present for all the first 10 sittings following the end of the summer recess.

The Malta Independent carried out a similar exercise at the start of this year and, yet again, one could see that several MPs were more absent than present in the House. And this happens even when MPs have to be in the House for just one minute of the three-and-a-half hour session to be marked as having been there.

Since that article, I have discussed the matter with several MPs, all of whom tried to defend their turf. Their main arguments were that MPs are still on duty if they are doing constituency rounds, or attending political conferences, or taking part in meetings of one of the parliamentary committees. In a bid to turn the tables on me, they also argued that journalists do not need to be at the office to file their copy.

Yes, it’s true, journalists can e-mail their news stories from anywhere, but by sending their copy it’s proof enough that they did the work they are paid to do. On the other hand, while agreeing that many MPs carry out other political duties at the time when Parliament is in session, they should still find the time to attend part of the sitting, possibly question time, as MP Charlo Bonnici suggested recently.

Let us not forget that the MPs receive their honoraria irrespective of whether they go to Parliament or not. Does anyone else out there get a salary for not going to work, or for just being there for one minute? Nobody expects a full House at all times for all sittings, but an increase in attendance is a must.

Allow me to also point out that some MPs would possibly not be doing anything connected to their political work when they are away while the House is in session, but seeing to their clients and patients in their professional capacity. Is this how they should respect the House of Representatives? Is this the level of commitment they have towards Parliament?

Mind you, what I am saying is not only in reference to government MPs. Opposition MPs also have a duty towards Parliament and, frankly, when one looks at the statistics published by The Malta Independent, it is clear that Opposition MPs have missed many more sittings than their government counterparts.

Naturally, being in Opposition, they are less conspicuous by their absence, knowing that it is very unlikely that someone from the government benches will make a quorum call, but even they should realise that, after all, they are elected by the people to represent them just as much as the government MPs are, and therefore even they have their duties to attend to.

For one thing, if a Labour MP submits a PQ, should he not be there to read it out himself rather than having his whip do the job? If Labour expects ministers to be present to answer the questions, then the MPs submitting these questions should be there too.

There is another point I would like to make. It is not only attendance, or lack of it, that is of concern. What is also annoying is that there are a number of MPs whose contribution to the House is very limited, by their own choice.

They hardly ever speak during the plenary session or adjournment, and the number of parliamentary questions they submit is too few when compared to their colleagues. I understand that many topics may not be up their street, but at the same time they should involve themselves much more in the discussion, and show more interest in the needs of their constituents too.

[email protected]