The Nationalist Party plans to press for a number of changes to Parliament this legislature, and their ideas are generally quite good.
One suggestion is for the introduction of Prime Minister’s Question time, a concept that is used in the UK, where the Prime Minister would have a dedicated time slot each week where he must answer questions put to him by Parliament.
Such a move would help in government transparency, and would also give a chance to Parliament to get clarifications and answers from the Prime Minister about the government’s plans and operations. To be quite honest, this is a concept that should have been introduced years ago and this newsroom cannot understand why it is not yet part of the system.
PN Whip Robert Cutajar told this newsroom that the PN expects ministers who have questions put to them in writing by MPs to be present during regular Parliamentary Question Time. Presently, we often see other ministers step in to read out the written answer of the minister the question was actually put to, as that minister would not be in Parliament. This, of course, creates obvious issues. For example, if the answer isn’t clear, then clarifications might not be able to be given by the minister reading out the answer then and there. Supplementary questions on the topic would also likely not be able to be answered. Of course if a minister is abroad on work or out sick it is one thing, but ministers should do their best to be present in Parliament during question time.
Another proposal by the PN involves the opposition days in Parliament. Currently the Opposition may present a Private Members' Bill or discuss a motion once every three to six months, during a session that is held on a Thursday. This, as the government and Opposition alternate this day dedicated to private business every three months, Cutajar had told this newsroom. Effectively, this means that the opposition gets two such days a year, he said.
The PN, he added, wants to shorten this frequency to a matter of weeks, so that the opposition can present more Private Members’ Bills and discuss more of its items. Obviously the government would retain the vast majority of the sessions to present its own bills, but one wonders whether the PN’s recommendation to increase the amount of Thursday sittings for Private Members’ Bills isn’t such a bad idea after all. Regardless of who is in government and who is in opposition, it could bring about important debates on issues more frequently, and given that the government might not want certain things discussed, this will allow whoever is in opposition to bring those issues to the forefront of debate more often.
Looking at this point from an analytical standpoint, it will benefit not just whichever party is in opposition, but the country in general.
The party also wants to stop government backbenchers from being given chairmanships. Government MPs should be able to criticise the government if needed, yet one questions whether they can truly be impartial if they are given such roles to begin with.