Parliamentary attendance soars on House’s last day
It could have been a coincidence or it could be a case that MPs are so enamoured by the new parliamentary premises they have moved into that they wanted to pay a final farewell at the close of this rather extended parliamentary season.
Even more plausible an explanation for yesterday’s near-full House of Representatives for a mere 15-minute session, the last before autumn, to approve two land transfers was the new €50 fine to be levied against Members of Parliament who play truant.
It has to be said that the subject matter of yesterday’s parliamentary session was not the most scintillating of topics, nor was it a source of controversy, nor was it a delicate matter for which both sides of the House required a full complement of MPs. It was, in actual fact, quite the opposite – the kind of session that would have normally seen a mere token number of MPs in the House, perhaps just enough to make for a valid quorum.
While it is encouraging to see a full House for an occasion such as yesterday’s, it is also somewhat disconcerting to imagine that there was a full House yesterday simply because no MP wanted to forfeit €50.
Back in January 2013 it was then Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat who had launched the proposal, welcomed by then Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, linking MPs’ House salaries
Editor’s pick
to their parliamentary attendance. And he was quite right. Our MPs are in effect parttime employees of the state and any parttime employee working any job for three and a half hours, three evenings a week would certainly not be paid for any time not spent on the job.
It is true that MPs, perhaps some more than others, spend an awful lot of time preparing their interventions and some are also engulfed with attending to parliamentary committees and other parliamentary work.
But it must be said that this is part of the terrain an MP has to deal with. Then again, being an MP is not a job that one enters for the money, at least it is certainly hoped that is not the case, and when it comes to the culmination of committee and other parliamentary work, the plenary sessions, all MPs that are not otherwise engaged in official business are expected to be present if not to contribute then to at least follow proceedings. The fine, however, may not be enough. There are, after all, a number of MPs who could afford to negate the entire honoraria they are paid as MPs and in fact, there is a very reasonable argument that habitual offenders should come under some form of discipline or censure at least from their respective parties.
Parliamentary attendance, according to Labour’s original suggestion, would also be made public online – another excellent idea but one that has not yet been followed up.
It may seem a little ridiculous to have an attendance sheet drawn up for parliamentarians but as this newspaper has amply demonstrated in the past, parliamentary attendance in a number of cases has been abysmal and such is the state of affairs that MPs simply must be held to account.
This newspaper has in the past published research into absences from House sittings by our MPs, and the results do not make for reassuring reading whatsoever.
This could, perhaps, also constitute the first moves toward establishing a full-time parliament. A report commissioned by the government back in April 2013 and drawn up and presented by the Ombudsman, the Auditor General and the Electoral Commissioner in December of that same year had recommended the creation of a full time Parliament, with new and improved salaries for MPs.
It will understandably be quite some time before the country is in a position for this next important step in the democratic process but for the time being, the institution of a fine for non-attendance at Parliament is a good start. It is hoped that come autumn, parliamentary attendance by the country’s lawmakers will become as regular as it should be – fine or no fine.