The GSD has issued a statement calling for Parliament to have a “proper Question and Answer session” in February. 

A statement from the GSD follows below:

Unless Ministers are willing to answer questions in Parliament the concept of Parliamentary scrutiny in  Gibraltar is fast becoming a farce. 

Parliament should have a proper Question & Answer session in February to deal with the massive backlog in  pending questions. 

The Parliament has not had a full question & answer session since late July 2020. Ministers have still not  answered most questions tabled in September still less those tabled in subsequent months. The GSD  Opposition has tabled questions in September, October [twice], November, December and January [twice].  It has over 250 pending questions on all manner of important subjects such as COVID, the health service,  education, contracts awarded by Government, tenders, the use of taxpayers’ monies, the environment,  social services or the New Year’s Eve Agreement . The GSD Motion on the Tax Treaty which was supposed to  be debated in September is still pending and may not see the light of day till the end of February or later. On  all these fronts this is just the Government avoiding uncomfortable debate or scrutiny. 

At present the Gibraltar Parliament does not work in delivering real scrutiny and accountability of Ministers.  It needs real reform of its procedures to work. To make matters worse it now does not even address  questions put by the Opposition in a timely way and there is so much delay in answering some questions  that they either need to be withdrawn or Government answers them in press releases avoiding any scrutiny  by follow-up questions from the Opposition. The Select Committees on the environment, constitutional  reform or parliamentary reform have not even met since the election.  

We understand that as a result of the negotiations following Brexit the House had to be adjourned on a  number of occasions between September and December 2020 and we have accommodated that but there  is now a need to restore some normality to the Parliamentary calendar as otherwise Ministers do not lay  themselves open to public scrutiny or accountability in areas of their responsibility. Additionally, some of the  delay appears to be driven by the Government’s insistence that the Chief Minister should always be present  in the House. That is unnecessary. Ministers should be able to answer questions on their departmental  responsibilities without the need to engage the Chief Minister’s time always. Or is it that they are unwilling  to do so without assistance? 

Leader of the Opposition, Keith Azopardi said: “Ministers aren’t being scrutinised if they cannot be  questioned. Beyond that there is a need for major reform so that the Parliament is in regular fixed monthly  sessions. At the moment the Opposition turn up to Parliament without knowing whether questions or Bills  will be taken and if so what Bills or questions. We often get a few minutes notice that certain Bills will be  debated or questions taken. This is completely unsatisfactory. It is Government by ambush. It is the  Government manipulating the Parliamentary agenda with no real scrutiny and unfairly against the 

Opposition to avoid transparency or real accountability. Parliament is supposed to hold Government to  account as an independent institution. It is not supposed to simply be an extension of the Government with  it solely deciding when it meets, what will be discussed and whether or not they answer questions. The  Parliamentary calendar should be fixed with people knowing when questions will be taken and what Bills will  be debated and when. The daily agenda should also be public so listeners or viewers can more easily follow  proceedings or tune in when they know something of interest to them will be discussed. There should be  standing Committees debating and scrutinising important issues of policy. Before the 2019 election the  Government said it had a commitment to Parliamentary reform. It needs to put its money where its mouth  is or be seen as having no real commitment whatsoever to expose itself to Parliamentary scrutiny.”