The PN is wrong to harangue the Speaker

There are instances in parliamentary life when adrenalin takes over and MPs flare up, using less than decorous language against each other.

This is part of the theatre of parliament; the political bickering and jibes that casual observers are attracted to out of curiosity, for entertainment purposes or to express outrage – or false outrage in many instances.

It is to be expected that politics, especially in a parliament made up of only two political parties unwilling to give the other side an inch, will have its moments when MPs clash and confront each other, using strong language and disruptive tactics.

But there is also a limit to this theatre. When the clashes become puerile; when the debate ignores ideas; when the disruptions have no significant protest value but are only intended to tease the other side; when parliament becomes just another place for machismo; both sides of the House have a duty to take a step back.

Within this context, the attitude adopted by the Nationalist Party parliamentary group towards Speaker of the House Anglu Farrugia is wrong.

The constant jibes directed towards the Speaker and the frequent flareups by some PN MPs, particularly Karol Aquilina, clearly point towards a grudge of sorts. This has now drawn in the whole parliamentary group into a permanent state of battle with the Speaker that is neither salutary nor decorous. The statement condemning the Speaker was unwarranted.

Politically, it is even a flawed strategy from which the PN has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

The Speaker’s rulings may not always be comprehensible. One such instance was Farrugia’s decision last month to turn down an Opposition request for an urgent debate following the drug heist from the premises of the Armed Forces of Malta.

It is true that when the request was made there was (and still is) an ongoing criminal investigation and parliamentary practice has been to avoid such debates to avoid the risk of prejudicing criminal procedures. But MPs could have debated the calls for political responsibility to be shouldered by the Home Affairs Minister without referring to the criminal investigation in any way, shape or form. At the very least, MPs could have debated the logic of having the army commander suspended immediately but not the minister and the permanent secretary.

So, yes, even within existing parliamentary rules and procedures there may have been the elements for such an urgent matter of public importance to be discussed on the day.

It is also true that what followed – the Prime Minister’s ministerial statement – was more a tirade against the Opposition than a statement to deliver the facts pertinent to the heist. The ministerial statement was akin to the opening salvos of the debate that had just been denied.

But even if the Opposition felt that the Speaker let them down, it should have avoided precipitating the situation.

Until Karol Aquilina got involved, Opposition leader Bernard Grech had been objecting strongly but in a dignified way to the tone and content of the Prime Minister’s statement, asking the Speaker to ensure that the reasons underpinning his ruling to prevent a debate be also respected in the ministerial statement.

Things took a turn for the worse when Aquilina went into a shouting match, passing snide remarks at the Speaker and accusing him of siding with Labour.

The behaviour was unbecoming of an MP and it jars even more now because the Opposition at no point lodged a formal challenge to the Speaker’s ruling, something within its rights.

The PN should stop its constant haranguing of the Speaker and where it needs to show disagreement with his rulings or attitude, this should be done strongly but respectfully.

The retort now is a puerile motion put forward by the government to condemn Aquilina’s behaviour and show solidarity with the Speaker. This motion is ridiculous because there are other ways of censoring an MP. But alas, what the government is probably interested in is furthering the petty partisan bickering because it helps to create a welcome distraction from its own problems.

Additionally, if both sides of the House are really interested in improving parliamentary procedures they should sit down together and agree on changes to the Standing Orders. The Speaker has no power to change Standing Orders.

We expect much better from our representatives.