Attendance is one of the most basic expectations in any profession. It is therefore not unreasonable for citizens to expect the same standard from the people they elect to represent them in Parliament.
The attendance records for the last legislature make for uncomfortable reading. Thousands of parliamentary sittings were missed collectively, with more than a third of those absences recorded as unjustified. While there are perfectly legitimate reasons why an MP may not be present on a particular day, the overall figures suggest that attendance has become a matter requiring greater attention.
This is not about naming and shaming individual parliamentarians. Every case has its own circumstances. Some MPs serve as ministers whose responsibilities regularly take them abroad. Others may be absent because of illness, family emergencies or official parliamentary duties. These are all understandable and unavoidable realities of public office.
The concern lies elsewhere: unexplained absences should never become routine.
Being elected to Parliament is both an honour and a responsibility. Voters entrust MPs with the task of scrutinising legislation, holding the government to account, debating national issues and representing the interests of their constituents. That responsibility cannot be fulfilled from elsewhere. Presence matters.
Some may argue that parliamentary attendance is not an accurate measure of an MP's effectiveness. They would have a point. Many parliamentarians spend considerable time working within their constituencies, meeting stakeholders, serving on committees, preparing legislation or carrying out ministerial responsibilities. Politics extends well beyond the walls of Parliament.
Yet this should not become an excuse for poor attendance. Parliament remains the country's highest democratic institution. It is where laws are debated and approved, where governments are questioned, and where the public expects its representatives to be visible and accountable.
The current system also leaves room for improvement. MPs need only sign in briefly to be considered present, even if they leave shortly afterwards. Likewise, an absence from a plenary sitting does not necessarily result in a financial penalty if an MP attended a committee meeting earlier in the day. These technicalities may satisfy parliamentary rules, but they do little to reassure the public that their representatives are fully engaged.
The €50 fine for an unexplained absence is also unlikely to act as a meaningful deterrent. More importantly, financial penalties alone cannot create a culture of responsibility. That must come from Parliament itself and from the political parties that select and support their candidates.
Both the government and the Opposition have reason to reflect. The figures show that absenteeism is not confined to one side of the House, even if one party's record was worse than the other's. This should not become another partisan argument. It is an institutional issue that affects public confidence in Parliament as a whole.
The fact that some MPs managed near-perfect attendance demonstrates that high standards are achievable despite demanding schedules. Their example shows that commitment to parliamentary duties is possible when given the priority it deserves.
Ultimately, democracy is built not only on elections but also on what happens between them. Citizens have every right to expect that those they choose to represent them will actually turn up to do the job.
Parliament cannot demand respect from the public if too many of its members fail to show sufficient respect for Parliament itself.