When the Speaker is not an elected MP

Austin Bencini (Brazen Contempt Of Consistency, May 8) chose to take us back to the 1998 political impasse, quoting a ruling by the Speaker of the time which implied that the Nationalist opposition needed two votes over the government to win a vote of no-confidence and drew a reflection on Labour's position in 1998 and that of a few weeks ago on the government's proposal to appoint a Speaker from within the opposition parliamentary group.

Sincerely, I feel that Dr Bencini's criticism of Labour's position is manifestly unjust and void of good faith because recent history attests that the then Prime Minister, Alfred Sant, called a snap election as soon as he lost the so-called "Cottonera vote". The claim that "Labour (back in 1998) supported the Speaker's ruling that the Nationalists needed two votes over the government to win" should be put in the context of what eventually took place and the very important political decision which the then Prime Minister undertook, mainly that of going to the polls.

This being said, it is also true that the acceptance of the Speaker's office would definitely put Labour in a position whereby it would require not one MP but two MPs in order to defeat the government. This due to the convention which says that the Speaker loses his original vote and, in case of a tie, is always expected to vote for the continuation of the debate. Even applying the 1998 ruling's reasoning, Labour would need not two MPs but three MPs in order to obtain the mark 50 per cent plus one of 70 members. Using either reasoning, Labour would be at a disadvantage.

I am glad however that Dr Bencini chose to take a leaf out of 1998 because it gave me the opportunity to put forward a point which, to my view, is extremely important. Strange as it may sound, the 1998 ruling was based on very strong legal argumentation and logic.

Article 76 (5) (a) of the Constitution says that a motion of no-confidence needs to be supported by the votes of a majority of all the members of the House. Then again, section 52 (2) of the Constitution rules that a Speaker, when elected from outside the House, is deemed to be a member of the House.

An exception to the rule was, however, included in 1974, providing that when an amendment to the entrenched parts of the Constitution is needed, the Speaker elected from outside the House should not be considered to be a member of the House. Contrariu sensu, due to the law's silence on the matter, it can be inferred that in the cases of motions under article 76 (5) (a) of the Constitution, a Speaker from outside the House must be included in the calculation of the number of members of the House.

By this reasoning, in a 69-member Parliament, a motion of no-confidence needs to be supported by 36 members, not merely 35, in order to be carried!

I think that in order to resolve this unhappy issue once and for all, article 52 of the Constitution should be amended. The end result should be that a Speaker elected from outside the House should not be deemed to be a member both in cases of changes to the entrenched parts of the Constitution and in cases of motions of confidence or no-confidence.

I wonder what the government would think about this proposal.

Dr Bonnici is a Labour member of Parliament.