'Opposition wanted to pull a fast one on government'

Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg accused the opposition of having "tried to pull a fast one on the government" by seeking to have the House adjourned from a Monday to a Thursday so that an opposition motion on the St John's Co-Cathedral project could be debated. At no time had the government reacted because it was afraid of having the St John's project debated.

Speaking after the Speaker's ruling on the admissibility of the government's procedural motion on House business, Dr Borg said the motion could be divided into three parts. The first part concerned the postponement of a vote, which had already been amply covered before the Speakers' ruling; the second part concerned the quorum; and the third was about how the business of the House was to be planned. The House could be called to sit on any day except Sundays, morning and evening, with alternate Thursdays being taken up by government work and private members' motions.

He agreed with the opposition that, with due respect to MPs' commitments, the government should plan the House's work well in advance. But it was not true that the government wanted in any way to suppress MPs' rights on private members' motions. What the government was proposing was even more justified today in the lack of a pairing agreement.

He recalled when he himself, in opposition, had submitted two motions, one on drugs and one on abrogative referenda, which had never been discussed. On the contrary, every private member's motion submitted in this legislature had been discussed, and the debate on the St John's project was pencilled in for February 11. This was considered the most convenient date for both sides because even government MPs who would have been away before that date wanted to speak on the motion.

The government had originally offered to have the private member's motion on the water and electricity tariffs debated in the same sitting with the St John's project, but had then agreed to let the water and electricity tariffs be debated in two sittings. The opposition was still to decide on this proposal.

Dr Borg said the motion in hand had nothing to do with the St John's project. There was a written agreement that the opposition would have a week's time to study any Bill, and the government would have the same facility on a private member's motion.

But the opposition had presented its St John's motion on a Saturday morning and insisted on debating it the following Thursday, less than a week later. This had worried the government about how either side could renege on an agreement, written or verbal.

On the quorum-related part of the government's procedural motion, Dr Borg said the quorum had never been intended as a form of discipline on MPs, but to avoid having a Bill approved by just three MPs in the House. At the time of a vote there should be a minimum number of MPs, but it should never be used as a tool as it had repeatedly been used during question time in the current and past legislatures. The quorum was not even entrenched in the Constitution.

Dr Borg quoted from a report which President Emeritus Ugo Mifsud Bonnici had presented in January 2001 and which had been discussed in Cabinet, but after two meetings the opposition had never given its reaction in four years. Now everything was being discussed again in the House Select Committee.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici had justly observed that in various foreign Parliaments the quorum had been reduced to a measure of discipline on the presence of members only at the time of voting. The quorum for Britain's House of Commons was set at 40 out of 640, while in Malta it was 15 of 69. Seeking to allay opposition fears of any impending change in the size of the quorum, Dr Borg said the quorum could henceforth only be called at the time of voting.

In New Zealand it had been concluded that the quorum should be abolished, but there should be a minimum number of MPs at the time of voting.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici had recommended that the real reason why the quorum existed should be reflected upon. It was to deter a small number of members passing a Bill by surprise. Dr Borg said it was therefore unfair for opposition MPs to withdraw into the corridors of Parliament to place the onus of quorum solely on the government.

Dr Borg said that although the quorum system had been heavily abused in Malta, the government was not seeking to eliminate it. It would be left as is, not even restricted to the time of voting, but the only change would be to suspend the House for 20 minutes instead of five, equalling the time allowed for voting after a division. But if the required minimum of MPs was seen to be available after a few minutes, the House would not have to wait for 20 minutes. The time taken to check the presence of a quorum, if it was not present, would be added to the time of the sitting.

Interjecting, George Vella (PL) said he had asked Dr Borg why such changes could not wait until the House could decide on them in the Select Committee. He said that what was happening was simply a waste of time and reflected the government's arrogance of power.

Regarding the first part of the motion, Dr Borg said it was the opposition that had not kept its word on the time lapse before debating a motion, and wanted to adjourn to Thursday quoting the Standing Orders. It had wanted to pull a fast one on the government.

Pairing in the House of Commons still existed with specific pairs of MPs. Under the Labour government of 1996-98 pairing had in fact existed, so much so that the government had decried the Nationalist opposition's withdrawal from the pairing agreement. That had only happened when the then Leader of the Opposition had been indisposed and John Dalli had stood up to present the motion instead. The Labour government had brought up all imaginable legalisms, and the Leader of the Opposition had had to come to Parliament to present his motion with just a ten-minute speech because of illness. Dr Borg asked what would happen if the same thing were to be done today. Wouldn't Labour withdraw from a pairing agreement?

Dr Borg said the government was not contesting the opposition's right to hold out on pairing, but then the opposition should not say an agreement existed.

In fact it boasted that there was no pairing and would not be. There could be no such thing as pairing on a case-by-case basis.

Interjecting, Labour Deputy Leader Anġlu Farrugia said that pairing had never been discussed in the House Select Committee. Continuing, Dr Borg said he had spoken about this in the first sitting of the Select Committee.

Dr Vella said that at no Select Committee sitting had Labour said there would be no pairing.

Mr Speaker Louis Galea reminded the House that discussions in the Select Committee were being held in camera, and that arguments could still be made without divulging what was being discussed there.

Continuing, Dr Borg said that in this scenario the government felt it should do what it was doing with the motion.

Dr Borg will continue his speech when the House meets again this evening.