Midway through this legislature, close to 500 oral parliamentary questions have gone unanswered with Justice Minister Owen Bonnici topping the list with 91 which are still pending.

Asked for his reaction Dr Bonnici played down the significance of this data saying it “painted a distorted picture” on the grounds that his ministry had one of the largest portfolios.

Social Policy Minister Michael Falzon was second in the list with 77 pending questions followed by Environment Minister Jose Herrera with 42.

At the other end of the table, Energy Minister Joe Mizzi was the most forthcoming with just 10 pending questions, followed by Education Minister Evarist Bartolo with 11.

Details of the number of pending parliamentary questions including those whereby the minister involved said the reply would be given in another sitting were given by Speaker Anġlu Farrugia on the request of Opposition MP Chris Said.

It transpired that since the start of this legislature on June 24, 2017, there have been 484 oral parliamentary questions which are still pending, out of a total of 12,336 questions submitted by December 18.

In the entire previous legislature which lasted from April 2013 till May 2017, almost 1,700 oral and written PQs out of a total of 33,595 were not answered. In that case the questions would have to be resubmitted. 

Asked for an explanation on the reason why so many PQs were still pending in this legislature, the justice minister insisted that he recognised his duty to answer all of them in a timely manner as this was an important tool to keep the executive under constant scrutiny.

As for the data itself, Dr Bonnici said the 91 unanswered questions “painted a distorted picture” as this was not a like-with-like comparison.

“The Ministry for Justice, Culture and Local Government is one of the largest ministries comprising not only two parliamentary secretariats but also answers questions relating to 69 local councils,” he pointed out.

Dr Bonnici added that during this legislature his ministry had received the second highest number of PQs, (1,414) which accounted to 11 per cent of PQs posed to all ministries, of which 94 per cent (1,323) had been answered.

“The total number of PQs answered by this ministry is considerably more than the actual number of questions asked on a one-to -one basis to all other ministries, except for the Ministry for Transport, Infrastructure and Capital Projects,” Dr Bonnici said.

Moreover, he said that the energy and economy ministries which had among the fewest pending questions had received significantly less questions with the respective totals standing at 447 and 305 respectively.

Apart from Opposition MPs, questions may also be submitted by government MPs but not ministers or parliamentary secretaries.

Are all PQs admissible?

According to the Standing Orders – the rules regulating parliamentary sittings – questions cannot contain any argument, opinion, inference, imputation, epithet or ironical expression.

Moreover, questions on the character or conduct of any person except in his official or public capacity are not allowed and the same question cannot be submitted again in case it had been fully answered.

During this legislature there have been instances whereby parliamentary questions submitted by Opposition MPs were deemed inadmissible by the Speaker, as well as complaints that the replies were unsatisfactory.

In March last year Dr Farrugia had deemed a question filed by former Opposition leader Simon Busuttil – who asked if the then chief of staff Keith Schembri had a bank account in Dubai or at Pilatus Bank -  as “inadmissible”.     

 Similar questions which had been flagged as not in line with standing orders were related to the possible participation of members of Cabinet at the wedding reception of the Pilatus Bank chief who was subsequently criminally charged in the US and his bank closed over money laundering breaches.

In a ruling on the matter the Speaker said the information requested was not related to public affairs with which the subject in question was officially connected, to parliamentary proceedings or to matters of administration for which they are responsible.

In a separate ruling, this time dating February 2019, the Speaker had floated the idea of amending the Standing Orders in order to have more clarity on what should be admissible or not.

The options could be to apply the existing regulations more rigorously or else revise them. Such process would help to address existing grey areas such as what constitutes the character or conduct of any person except in his official or public capacity.

As for the “unsatisfactory replies”, the Speaker had remarked there were no provisions which empowered him to enter into such merits or to verify that a full reply was given.