It took some cheek for the Labour Party to cry foul when Parliament was adjourned for an Easter recess of 26 days, when in 1997 it had done the same thing during its short-lived administration.

Labour deputy leader Anglu Farrugia and whip Joe Mizzi should have checked their facts before going to the media with their complaints that the government had taken an unprecedented move to prolong the Easter holidays.

If they had done so, the Labour Party would have been saved the embarrassment of having their 1997 stunt revealed, and the PL would have appeared to be more credible when it accuses the government of protracting tactics. To be fair, when this newspaper exposed the PL two weeks ago, it stopped referring to the “record” Easter break Parliament is currently having.

But it must be pointed out that the situation they had to cope with 15 years ago was similar, if not more serious, to what it is today, and Labour had chosen the same way this government has taken.

When the Labour Party had resorted to such a measure, it was already engaged in some kind of internal strife, barely six months after winning the election. The extended recess gave it time to recharge its batteries, although it did not take long for the crisis to come to a head, leading to an early election in September 1998.

Where the Labour Party is correct is its claim that the decision to have a 26-day break this time round should have been decided by the House Business Committee. It should not have been imposed as it was by the government. If the government expects cooperation from the Opposition, then it should be the first to offer its hand.

Having said this, one wrong action does not justify another, and just as much as the 26-day break in 1997 was too long, it is equally too long today. In both instances, the two governments employed delaying tactics in an attempt to calm things down – in 1997 Labour took its time to come to terms with Lino Spiteri resigning his post as Finance Minister after the VAT-CET fiasco; today it is the PN’s turn to try to work things out to save its one-seat majority until the end of term and try to finish national projects before going to the polls.

What happened in 1997 is the past, so what concerns us now is what is taking place today. And the impression being given is that Parliament is once again being used to suit the needs of a government that is in difficulty.

(This apart from the fact that MPs are not leading by example when it comes to commitment and dedication to their responsibilities, especially at a time when the public at large is being bombarded with news of economic uncertainties and asked to work harder. The general impression of Parliament, which meets for just ten-and-a-half hours a week and with many MPs having such a poor record in terms of attendance, is not good, and lengthy holidays do not help to improve the image).

That no particular vote of significance has been taken in Parliament for a long time exposes a government that is unsure of whether it could still muster total support in the House of Representatives. True, the government can still go on with the Speaker’s vote, if needs be, but this situation does create an element of insecurity, which is not ideal for a country that needs to maintain its competitiveness at all levels.

The thing is, it is quite ironic that the government is facing a crisis because of an internal dispute while the country has made it through tough economic times with flying colours – with employment on the rise, investment going up and a general sense of well being. A quick look at how restaurants were full of people and how many of them turned down bookings for Easter Sunday lunch shows that the Maltese have money to spend and want to spend it.

Elsewhere, European governments have had to face riots in the streets sparked by rising unemployment and austerity measures that needed to be taken to try and stop the financial haemorrhage. There, governments collapsed under the pressure of economic woes, not because of the whims of a singular MP.

And here all the Opposition complains about is the lack of pillows at the hospital, a claim that moreover has been repeatedly denied.

Still, there should be more respect shown to the highest institution in the land.

* * *

Parents of disabled children have cancelled their Inspire membership because they are unhappy with the services offered. They have written to the government asking for funds earmarked for their children to be diverted to other NGOs of their choice.

What saddened me is the reason why these parents chose to take this drastic step. In their letters, parts of which were published in The Malta Independent, they said that the services offered by Inspire have “degenerated greatly” and that the organisation is “more like a business”. They said the NGO “has wiped out the mission of the Eden Foundation”, “is detached from parents” and its main aim “is to make money”.

Very strong words indeed, which, in my opinion, were very timidly rejected in a reply Inspire sent to this publishing house. Inspire’s answers were not convincing at all.

What these parents have said is quite serious, and I believe that they should not go unnoticed. The government has the duty to see whether the complaints levelled are justified, particularly because most of Inspire’s finances come from public money. The Commissioner for Voluntary Organisations should also keep watch.

That Inspire ignored a question on whether a shower was installed in the CEO’s office and who paid for it is not the best way to dispel doubts.

The matter should be looked into now, before a new agreement is reached with Inspire after the three-year-accord runs out next year.

[email protected]