Speaker rejects opposition request to debate TV spots controversy

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Anton Tabone, yesterday rejected a request by the opposition to hold an urgent debate on state TV broadcasts explaining Labour's policy on the European Union.

Mr Speaker ruled the matter was not of an urgent nature.

The request was made by Opposition leader Alfred Sant in terms of standing order 13 providing for the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance.

He said Public Broadcasting Services Ltd was in a situation of constitutional illegality after it failed to comply with a directive issued by the Malta Broadcasting Authority (MBA) to broadcast information spots highlighting the Labour Party's policy of a partnership with the European Union.

Dr Sant said such a situation of illegality meant that the Labour opposition's constitutional rights were being blatantly breached and therefore such rights had to be protected as urgently as possible.

In his ruling, Mr Speaker referred to previous decisions which had laid down that requests made under standing order 13 had to satisfy three requisites: the matter had to be of a definite nature, it had to be of public importance and also of an urgent nature.

While the first two ingredients were present in Dr Sant's request, the element of urgency was absent because the matter had long been the subject of political controversy, Mr Tabone ruled. In addition, the issue was now before the Maltese courts.

Moving his request, Dr Sant said the opposition had noted the abuse by the Malta-EU Information Centre (MIC) which had been allowed to infiltrate the public broadcasting media by way of transmissions of different types in order to convey the government's message in favour of EU membership.

Yet, notwithstanding the repeated complaints it was only recently that the opposition had been granted partial remedy by the MBA.

The EU matter had yet to be resolved by the people and, thus, it still had to be considered as a controversial issue. However, even after the MBA had decided to give some air time to the Labour opposition to convey its views on the matter to the public, PBS refused to comply. Thus, the imbalance which the MBA itself now acknowledged was aggravating itself.

Dr Sant said the request by the opposition for the House to hold an urgent debate on the matter was based on three main points. Firstly, that there was no doubt that this was a matter of national public importance of the first order. Secondly, the MBA, an institution empowered under the Constitution to decide on such matters, had ordered a partial remedy and, thirdly, PBS, a contractor of the MBA, had to comply with directives issued by the MBA and this even on the basis of past court judgements.

The prime minister said the MIC had been charged by the government to explain to the public, in an autonomous manner, what the EU was all about and also impart all information that would be necessary in order to empower the people to reach their own conclusions whether in favour or against EU membership.

MIC never told the people they should say yes to membership. On the contrary, it addressed all problems and aspects including those which could be considered as being negative to accession. Dr Fenech Adami said the MBA itself commented that in radio or TV programmes MIC behaved correctly and had been objective.

The MLP's request to the MBA was for it to convey its views to the public and persuade them to say no to membership.

Dr Fenech Adami said the MBA's decision was being contested by PBS which, incidentally, was nowadays no longer a contractor of the MBA as it used to be in the past.

PBS was insisting that the MBA's decision was ultra vires its authority under the Constitution.

In the past, the MBA had taken a different view but now that there had been a change in some members, including the chairman, the MBA had taken the decision in question. It was clear, Dr Fenech Adami said, that if one political party were to be given the right to air its views on state TV then similar facilities had to be granted to all political parties.

The prime minister said the motion should not be accepted by the Chair as, firstly, the situation in question had not come about now. And, secondly, the matter was now before the courts. This was a legal and constitutional matter that had to be decided by the courts.

Dr Sant said was surprised to hear the prime minister speak in such a disparaging tone on the MBA. That, in itself, underscored the need for the debate the opposition was demanding.

Dr Fenech Adami had depicted the MIC as an objective agency. Being factual was one thing but highlighting only the positive aspects and ignoring the negative ones was another.

The MBA itself had ruled there was need for a remedy. Every democracy was based on choice otherwise one risked social and political conflict, Dr Sant said.

PBS was responsible for public broadcasting, whether it was the MBA's contractor or not. And as a public broadcaster it fell under the Constitution. In turn, the MBA was in a position to exercise full authority on public broadcasting.

PBS was now claiming it would be losing part of its air time available to commercial transmissions as a result of the MBA's decision. The MBA was saying that one third of the time allocated to MIC should be given to the MLP to air its views.

The urgency of the matter resulted from the MBA's acknowledgment that there was an imbalance in public broadcasting and PBS's refusal to comply, thus enhancing the imbalance.

Dr Fenech Adami recalled that the MBA had decided on a series of TV debates involving divergent views on the EU. However, the MLP had refused to participate.

Parliament, he added, had no authority to go into the matter now that it was before the highest courts of the country.

Both the MLP and its leader had been protesting against MIC since its inception and, thus, one could not argue that the issue had become an issue of urgent national importance now.

Dr Fenech Adami said he had a right to criticise the MBA and any other authority. It was he who had nominated the new MBA chairman against the advice of the leader of the opposition. He knew the chairman was a serious person but he still had a right to criticise.

The prime minister said the PN would soon file a court case claiming discrimination in favour of the MLP and against the PN.

Dr Sant replied that what the House had before it was a decision by the MBA that was being ignored by PBS, a public entity falling under the Constitution, and which stand was now being condoned by the prime minister.

The prime minister said Dr Sant had accused him of undermining democracy. Dr Fenech Adami said he had saved democracy and would do so again.

Dr Sant interjected saying there were various ways of undermining democracy such as forking out money to have certain people speaking only in a given tone. That would be a situation whereby one would end up reaping the whirlwind.

Dr Fenech Adami said it was the leader of the opposition who did not believe in democracy, so much so that he declared he did not respect the outcome of a referendum.

Dr Sant said spending Lm1 million a year to convey a single message was undermining democracy.