Share

April 27, 2020 A letter addressed to the President of the Chamber Roberto Fico, signed by 67 deputies, calls for full powers for Parliament in this delicate phase for Italy.

The initiative of 5 deputies - Alessandro Fusacchia (mixed), Paolo Lattanzio (m5s), Rossella Muroni (leu), Erasmo Palazzotto (leu), Lia Quartapelle (pd) - was then signed by 62 other deputies, majority and opposition . The letter - reads a note - was born exactly one month from the appeal of 90 parliamentarians on the adoption of agile and remote work measures for the Italian Parliament, in light of the fact that nothing has changed. While in fact phase 2 and the reopening of businesses are being prepared, Parliament's operating procedures are still governed by agreements between gentlemen and approximate and downward compromises, without a real management plan that guarantees their full functionality.

In the letter, the parliamentarians stress: "Italy needs a Parliament in the full of its functions and powers and we want to put the maximum effort into this difficult phase of life in our country. It will not be possible to do our duty in unsuitable and insecure working conditions that set a bad example for the rest of the country. Continuing with the approximate methods with which we have worked in the past few weeks, we are hurting Italian democracy and are failing the representative mandate that the Italians and Italians have entrusted ".

"Enough shortcuts. We are the representatives of the nation. We are the Parliament of the Italian Republic. Just two days ago we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Liberation. Let us all assume the responsibility required by the historical moment we are experiencing," add the signatories of the letter.

"For months now the country has been working hard to ensure that the strictest health control and prevention measures against the Covid-19 virus are respected in all offices and workplaces" but there is "a workplace in Italy who did not use the time of the lockdown to think and implement new ways to make work safe, and this is the Italian Parliament ". "On 27 March", the signatories of the letter recall, "we have promoted a public appeal, which has received the adhesion of many parliamentarians, to ask for the adoption of all security measures and the possibility of agile and remote work In response and with difficulty, we were granted the minimum: remotely only meetings of the Bureaux and informal hearings. The appeal of other colleagues to evaluate the possibility of holding parliamentary sessions in a place other than Deputies ".

"Not only has the possibility of remote voting not been explored, but discussion in the Commissions in this way has not been made possible either. It has been thought how Italian politics too often does that the passage of time would have solved the problem unnecessarily We left everything to hypothetical agreements on presences in the Chamber, knowing full well that they are agreements between gentlemen and that the imposition of an agreement on reduced presences in the Chamber would be simply unconstitutional "the parliamentarians attack in the letter addressed to Fico.

"It is very serious", complain the parliamentarians "that when preparing for the most delicate phase of reopening, when we ask employers, workers and workers for changes in their habits, the Italian Parliament, which will have to decide on the rules to be applied throughout Italy, neither as an example nor to the minimum security provisions. How can we think of representing the country, when we ourselves implement facade behaviors instead of substantial changes in how we work and how we manage our days? "ask the 67 MEPs who signed the letter.

The elected members then describe in particular what happened last April 24 where "in the Chamber" the choices on the management of the Chamber "generated a situation to the limit: Fratelli d'Italia decided, as is the prerogative of every parliamentary force, to be present in classroom forces. The majority forces therefore equipped themselves so as not to lack confidence in the government. The result: we were too many, not necessarily in safety ". "As if that weren't enough, we learned in the press that a colleague with a fever still entered the Chamber, and moreover it would be a very serious act against the exercise of his constitutional prerogatives if a member of parliament were prevented from entering Parliament".

"A Parliament is not managed, and therefore a country is not governed, with an agreement under the table, pretending that the problems do not exist", attack the signatories of the letter, who add: "We remind you, among other things, that in Parliament, so as in all other jobs, there are people who are particularly at risk - or who coexist and sometimes assist people at risk - and who would become exposed to very serious, if not lethal, consequences if they become infected. hope that no problems will be noticed Other Parliaments have used this time to find solutions that would avoid making the highest representative institutions of democracy sound and inert: the European Parliament and the British Parliament have experimented with distance voting; the German Bundestag has approved a timed regulatory change. "