The Malta Independent on Sunday
PN in favour of full-time MPs, PL looks forward to debate
The Nationalist Party has come out in favour of the idea of fulltime parliamentarians, while the Labour Party is not yet declaring its position, stating that it is looking forward to debating the matter. The government has said that such a discussion will take place within the context of broader constitutional reform.
The idea of full-time parliamentarians has picked up some steam recently, with PN MP David Stellini speaking out about the need to introduce an option for full-time members of parliament and using his own troubles and issues to illustrate why such a move would help eliminate potential conflicts of interest (which he also has). It would also be beneficial as it would help MPs dedicate all their time to serving their constituents and their country, he has said. Former PN MP Franco Debono had also addressed the issue, stating that such a change should only be considered if the size of parliament is reduced.
The Malta Independent on Sunday sent the following questions
to the government, the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party in order to get their official position on the idea of full-time MPs. They were asked for their official position on the idea of introducing full-time members of parliament in Malta; whether they would be in favour of it being optional; for information as to what other changes would be needed if the concept of full-time MPs is introduced; and lastly, whether they believe parliamentarians need more resources in order to better carry out their work.
The PN was the only one of the three to clearly state its position.
The response received from the government read: “The discussion on full-time politicians will be carried out within the broader picture of constitutional reform.”
The upcoming constitutional reform has been spoken about for quite some time. In November 2018, President MarieLouise Coleiro Preca was reported to have been tasked with leading the talks. She is heading a steering committee with representatives nominated by the two major political parties in parliament.
In response to the questions sent by this newsroom, the Nationalist Party said that it is “in favour of full time parliamen- tarians and against the system being operated by this government whereby Labour government’s backbenchers are being compensated through the backdoor by being appointed to head public entities and government operations which they are supposed to scrutinise in their role of MPs.
“In its Good Governance Policy document and in its 2017 electoral programme, the Nationalist Party had proposed the introduction of full-time parliamentarians on a voluntary basis. As such, it is willing to discuss the proposal’s immediate introduction with the government. The Nationalist Party remains open to discussing whether the proposed option of part-time parliamentarians should be limited to a transitory period.”
As for resources, the PN said that both part-time and fulltime parliamentarians are in dire need of resources and technical assistance. “A strong parliament serves the people as it should. A weak parliament only serves the government’s grip on yet another important institution.”
The Labour Party did not declare its stance one way or the other, but said that it looked forward to a debate on the matter. “From parliamentary autonomy to new roles such as that of the commissioner for standards, the Labour government has given utmost importance to the need of strengthening our parliamentary institutions. The discussion on full-time MPs was also one of Labour’s pledges during the last general election. Therefore, we look forward to a debate on the subject during this mandate.”
The PL’s 2017 manifesto read that a discussion on whether MPs should be given the choice between working full-time or part-time would take place.
Back in August 2018, Partit Demokratiku had insisted that members of parliament should serve their country on a fulltime basis.