Parliament is currently debating a Bill that will allow MPs to sit on select boards. The government has now specified that it wants MPs to sit not on any board but on boards that are mainly concerned with social, cultural or historical issues, listing a number of entities that also include the boards running Malta Enterprise and the Malta Sports Council.
The Labour government has gone to great pains trying to justify this move, which for me simply means more options for Prime Minister Muscat to settle his debt with some individuals who are still waiting for their trophy for helping Labour gain power. In my opinion, it is also attempt to buy the silence of Opposition MPs were they to accept such an offer. Such a strategy seems to have worked with some people who prior to the last election were so outspoken against every aspect of the previous administration and who now seem to have lost their tongue.
Labour justifies this move by pointing out that a Nationalist government had appointed an MP on one of these boards as well as a number of parliamentary assistants. True, the difficult circumstances the previous administration had found itself in due to the behaviour of some of the MPs had led to a number of decisions, which in my opinion should not have been taken. Appointing an MP as chairman of one of these boards is not a good idea irrespective of the capabilities of the individual concerned. What was not acceptable yesterday is not acceptable today.
As regards the appointment of parliamentary assistants, the argument is slightly different. First and foremost such a position (under a different name) already exists in foreign parliamentary systems, namely at Westminster on which we have based our own system. One can criticize the fact that such a system was introduced in a reactionary manner, but it still respected the distinction between the Legislative and the Executive.
Parliamentary assistants had no executive powers even though they were given the opportunity to attend internal meetings, which allowed them to follow closely the work of that particular ministry to which they were assigned. Involving more the parliamentary assistants in the coordination of parliamentary work could have developed the system further. My short experience in this area showed me that such a role could have been extremely effective in Parliament.
In the current debate, the Opposition has based its arguments on the fact that the Opposition is there to monitor and criticize the government not to be in cahoots with it in decisions taken. Limiting such appointments to select boards does not change anything. If anything, some of the boards listed by the government should definitely have been left out of the equation to keep them free from political interference.
One such example is the Occupational Health and Safety Authority. One of the functions of this authority is to “advise the Minister responsible for occupational health and safety regarding the making of regulations to promote, maintain and protect a high level of occupational health and safety”. So now we will be having MPs (including, in principle, those from the Opposition party), whose role is to monitor the work of the Executive, advising the government rather than providing constructive criticism, which is what people expect from a party in Opposition. This argument could also be applied to the rest of the boards mentioned by the government.
While on this subject, I should mention that we should soon be debating amendments to Parliament’s standing orders proposed by the government.
Undoubtedly, these standing orders need to be looked into because some of them are simply outdated. For example, they still refer to Mondays and Thursdays as the days when Parliament meets when for many years Parliament has now been meeting on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The review of the standing orders was one of the items that had to be tackled by the Select Committee appointed in the last legislature whose work came to a complete halt following an unrelated incident in Parliament. This should have been the way forward but ultimately it did not happen. Now the government is proposing some changes that do nothing to make these parliamentary regulations more relevant to today’s needs.
The proposal to change Parliament’s meeting times in order to make them more family friendly is very superficial. By convening Parliament at 5pm instead of 6pm and finishing at 8.30pm instead of 9.30pm one wouldn’t be encouraging more people, especially women, to participate in politics because it will become more family-oriented. Such changes could have been discussed as part of a whole package of reforms, which strengthens the position of an MP, making it more effective, more transparent, and more in line with people’s expectations. This might have been tied to a discussion as to whether we should have full-time MPs. There are arguments in favour and against such an arrangement but it definitely would go a long way to making Parliament more effective than it is now.
With the new role our Parliament has assumed once the Lisbon Treaty was approved the amount of work that needs to be carried out has increased and will keep on increasing. Irrespective of which system we will ultimately opt for, we should not shy away from discussing the issue irrespective of the final outcome. Adopting a piecemeal approach is no sensible solution.
Mr Bonnici is Opposition spokesperson for sustainable development, the environment and climate change.
[email protected]