PM ready to repeal parliamentary privileges

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi told Parliament yesterday that he was ready to repeal parliamentary privileges. He was reacting to comments by Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat who had earlier said that there were occasions when government members had abused such a privilege. Dr Gonzi said this would benefit both sides of the House.

The procedural motion was carried by 33 votes in favour and 32 against after a division. Labour MPs Michael Falzon and Joe Sammut were absent, as were Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici and Beppe Fenech Adami (both PN).

Winding up the eight-sitting debate on the House procedural motion, Dr Gonzi said Dr Muscat had said the government was afraid of giving time for Parliament to discuss issues such as the current economic crisis. He pointed out that he had just offered to give details of his recent meeting in Brussels on this, and therefore could not understand how the opposition was saying the government did not want to answer questions.

Dr Muscat had also said the government did not want to give details on proceedings in the House Select Committee. Dr Gonzi said that if anyone should honour the agreement on the Select Committee, it was Dr Muscat.

Interjecting, Dr Muscat said that at no time had he divulged the proceedings of the Select Committee.

Dr Gonzi said the parliamentary privilege was a heritage of the House of Commons that allowed MPs to say what they wanted without being held responsible for it outside the House. It was time to consider repealing parliamentary privilege, for the benefit of both sides.

He denied that the government had been arrogant with the opposition, countering that it was the other way around.

The argument had flared up about a year into the legislature, after a good track-record of cooperation between the two sides. Suddenly, the Leader of the Opposition had surprised the House by demanding that it meet on Mondays and Thursdays instead of Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, citing Standing Orders. Opposition Whip Joe Mizzi had blamed the proposal on the government's failure to institute a procedural motion.

Interjecting, Mr Mizzi denied this, and challenged the government to listen to a recording of his speech on that day.

Dr Gonzi said Dr Muscat had come to the House and asked for a ruling at 9 p.m., just before the end of the sitting. Anyone who followed the proceedings could tell that the House could not function by meeting only twice, instead of three times, a week. The opposition had also alleged that the government had been treating it badly.

Ever since the results of the general election had been announced, the government had been very prudent and had not convened the House until the very last day allowed by the Constitution, so that the opposition could appoint a new leader. Soon after it had transpired that the opposition had not completed the process. Again with great prudence, the government side had met and decided not to table any procedural motions, also in the expectation of coming to an agreement on pairing with the opposition.

Dr Gonzi said the government had also given the opposition a written series of proposals for discussion, which might have led to misinterpretation.

The proposal for the Deputy Speaker to be an opposition MP had been made for the first time in Maltese political history. The government's proposals had included the introduction of Prime Minister's question time as in the House of Commons, with any topic to be covered. The proposals had also included the strengthening of the House's resources with a view to enhancing its operations.

The Labour leader had been appointed in June, but had not taken his constitutional appointment before October, and the government had again waited in the hope of a possible agreement. None of this had materialised.

Why was it that the opposition had made its move only on January 26? He knew the answer, but would wait for the opposition to divulge it.

How had the government been arrogant with the opposition in almost a year of legislature? It was the opposition's prerogative to decide on the pairing issue, but the House could never function by meeting only twice a week. And the government was criticised of wanting to silence Parliament, when it wanted to give the House more time to meet.

Correspondence existed to show that the government had suggested that Labour MP Carmelo Abela be appointed Deputy Speaker in combination with the pairing agreement. Since both Mr Abela and Speaker Louis Galea had been doing their jobs well, Dr Gonzi said it would be stupid to continue to tie the two positions with the pairing agreement, and the situation should now remain unchanged.

The Speaker's ruling on January 26 had upheld the opposition's stance, but the government disagreed. In the case of uncontested business the House could be adjourned to any day. The motion of adjournment could not be changed.

Dr Gonzi strongly emphasised that the procedural motion, which he would have liked to avoid, was born of the government's onus to let the House continue to function. Only a few days before, an urgent meeting had been called by the EU for prime and foreign ministers. The opposition must realise that the government was bound to be represented at such meetings and should take in consideration official visits such as his recent trips to Berlin and Prague.

Interjecting, Mr Mizzi said the opposition had even given the government facilities to be away from the House on official business in Malta, let alone overseas.

Dr Gonzi said he could not deny this. The two sides had worked well before the opposition's recent stance. The House could not function properly without mutual confidence and trust.

Mr Mizzi said the Prime Minister was not correct. He had just asked for a guarantee that the House could debate the opposition's motion.

Dr Gonzi said he could not understand how people could try to alter even recent history. In January the opposition had held up the House to wait for a ruling by Mr Speaker. The government could not accept that its ministers could not travel on official business.

The procedural motion said nothing about the House not voting, but only when the vote would be taken. Since both the British and the Italian Houses had similar practices, it meant that those two governments, too, were arrogant with their oppositions.

The opposition had accused the government of not having allowed pairing in 1997. He could give the opposition a long list of votes that had been taken between 1996 and 1998, with the pairing agreement active for all of 54 sittings. The pairing agreement had been repealed when then-opposition leader Eddie Fenech Adami had tabled a motion which John Dalli had subsequently sought to pilot because Dr Fenech Adami was ill.

The Labour government had insisted that it was the Leader of the Opposition who should pilot the motion, because he had tabled it. Louis Galea had said it was a known fact that Dr Fenech Adami was unwell.

On a point of order, former Prime Minister Alfred Sant denied that his government had been told that Dr Fenech Adami was ill. He had said this repeatedly and challenged anyone to allege otherwise.

Dr Gonzi said that the Nationalist opposition had put it on record that Dr Fenech Adami was ill. He said he was reading from the minutes of the House.

Mr Speaker refused to allow a point of order to change minuted proceedings of the House. Points of order could be allowed only in relation to Standing Orders.

Dr Sant reiterated that the Labour government had not known of Dr Fenech Adami's illness, and nobody in the House could say otherwise.

Concluding, Dr Gonzi said that the procedural motion was intended to allow the government and the House to function without hindering official travel by government members.

Earlier, Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat claimed that the government was afraid of Parliament and had presented the procedural motion in reaction to the opposition's licit request to hold a debate and vote on the St John's Co-Cathedral Museum project.

The opposition had declared that it was not entering into a pairing agreement only after the government presented the procedural motion. The opposition had always shown a sense of fair play and was still providing pairing while showing a sense of fair play. A fine example was the ruling given by the Deputy Speaker without any pressure exerted on him by the opposition. On the contrary, in 1996, Labour MP Anġlu Farrugia had had to preside all sittings because his counterpart from the opposition had been instructed not to attend.

Dr Muscat said Parliament could only move forward through persuasion. The systems that the government was proposing were not good for a free and strong Parliament. The government was afraid of its own members.

The motion constituted a precedent which future governments could adopt, because the House was setting the standards for future legislatures. Dr Muscat said the government had no control on how to govern. Official statistics showed that the deficit for January had increased to €163 million, an increase of 117 per cent over January the previous year. This was larger than that registered for the first quarter of 2008.

In this year's budget, the government had also proposed that the recurrent expenditure decreases by €18 million during the year, but in January the recurrent expenditure had increased by €45 million. In the same month the government had received €316,000 from the EU when it contributed €4.6 million to the bloc every month.

Dr Muscat said that, even though the government had withdrawn the St John's Museum project, the foundation was still to discuss the withdrawal of its Mepa application. He said that no foundation was superior to Parliament. He still expected the two government members of the Cabinet to publicly repeat what they had said on the St John's project, namely that undue pressure had been exerted and that the funds had come because there were persons who knew how to play the game.

Dr Muscat declared that the opposition was ready to continue with its sense of fair play. It was obvious that the opposition would grant pairing when members were indisposed. The government would be respected.

Today, the government was arrogant with the opposition. There were occasions when government members had abused the parliamentary privilege. He referred to what Minister Austin Gatt had said in the House when he had mentioned a private citizen and accused him that as a manager at the Central Bank he had passed confidential statistical information before it was published. He said this person could not defend itself.

Dr Muscat called on Minister Gatt to publicly apologise to this citizen because the chairman of the Central Bank Audit Investigation Unit had concluded that no confidential information had been leaked by this same person. He claimed that Minister Gatt had lied to the House and that this behaviour was not acceptable. In such a scenario, Dr Muscat said, pairing had to be forgotten.

Despite the procedural motion which showed that the government did not want to continue with talks in the Select Committee, the opposition was to continue attending with an impetus to see that things were moving forward. Real progress had to be registered and where agreement was arrived at on certain issues these had to come into force.

The opposition would continue to be constructive in its criticism and show its goodwill as it had done on the dockyard issue. But, he concluded, goodwill was lacking on the part of the government.

• Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi yesterday announced that, in agreement with the opposition, he would be making a statement on the EU Brussels summit today. He refrained from doing so yesterday so as not to take time from yesterday's debate.

The House approved the first reading of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill and the Malta Maritime Authority (Amendment) Bill.

It also approved the estimates of the National Audit Office for 2009 and the third reading of the Bill implementing various budget and other administrative measures.

Factbox

What the motion means

Wednesday sittings can now start being held between 10 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. Monday and Tuesday sittings will continue to be held at 6 p.m. with the adjournment being moved at 9 p.m.

Sittings can be held on any morning, except on Sundays, as required. The procedural motion also provides that when a division is called, in whichever sitting, it will be taken on the following Wednesday. Divisions called on Wednesday will be taken on that day at 1 p.m. on the interruption of business. Should more than one division be called, they will be taken in chronological order.

In moving the adjournment before the Wednesday sitting, a minister may provide that a division be taken in another sitting within a week.

On quorum calls, the procedural motion says that, when a sitting is interrupted because of a lack of quorum, it may resume before the expiry of the 20 minutes (previously provided by Standing Orders) if Mr Speaker is satisfied that enough MPs are present.

Before, a sitting remained interrupted for the full 20 minutes. Any time taken on quorum calls will now be added to the sitting.