The Speaker yesterday rejected a point of order raised by former Opposition Leader Alfred Sant that the procedural motion presented by the Prime Minister to regulate the business of the House was inadmissible because it infringed Article 65 of the Constitution.

Dr Galea ruled that the procedural motion did not clash with Article 65 of the Constitution or House Standing Orders and was therefore admissible. Although one would have preferred matters to be taken in their natural order, he said one understood the complaint about regulating when a division was taken. He pointed out that this was a point of procedure and did not go against the substance of Article 65.

He referred to the marginal notes annexed to the article distinguishing between powers and procedures of the House.

Procedures could be modified or suspended according to circumstances, including the exigencies of the government and/or the agenda set by the government, and often agreed to, by the House Business Committee.

The Speaker also referred to Malta's international and regional obligations, adding that these could only be fully respected if members of Parliament could fulfil these obligations.

At the start of the sitting, Dr Sant pointed out that previous procedural motions had never attacked the principle that legislative decisions had to be taken by the House, but the present motion attacked Parliament's functions because it practically said that the House could meet and discuss Bills but could not take a vote at the end of the same sitting. He said this was a flagrant attack on parliamentary functions.

There should be a distinction between the legislative and the executive. He said the motion itself said that this was being done "in view of the commitments abroad of the members of the executive", and asked how one could change parliamentary functions to accommodate the executive.

Dr Sant declared that if the country wanted to go down what he called "this fascist path" the government had to be clear about it.

The House had every right to approve Bills while it was meeting, and not when the Cabinet decided, as was being suggested under the procedural motion whereby the vote on a Bill could be delayed by even a week according to ministerial exigencies. Concluding, Dr Sant said the country had a minority government and could not continue to delegate more powers to the Cabinet.

Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg said that the government enjoyed a majority in the country and in the House because Dr Sant had moved a Constitutional amendment that the party with the majority of votes would have also the majority of seats in the House. This was a government with a relative majority; if it was in a minority, the Opposition was then in a smaller minority.

If Dr Sant felt that the Constitution was being infringed, he should go to the Constitutional Court because such a decision was not vested in the Speaker.

Dr Borg said that there was nothing in the motion that impinged on Article 65 of the Constitution. The motion neither limited debates nor did it affect the way members voted.

What was being changed was that the Standing Order was being suspended so that the vote could be taken on Wednesdays or on the subsequent Wednesday.

Also, it was the House that was going to approve the motion because the executive did not have such a right. One could say that the vote was being postponed and not that it was being transferred to the executive. Besides, members of the executive, other MPs had commitments abroad and the opposition had decided not to enter into a pairing agreement.

Interjecting, Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat remarked that the opposition had decided on the pairing agreement only after the government had presented the procedural motion.

Dr Sant said that he was shocked by what Dr Borg had said, as if the Speaker did not have the right to see that the Constitution was observed. It was everyone's responsibility to do so. Approving laws at the convenience of the Cabinet went against the functions of the House. All previous procedural motions had insisted on uninterrupted sessions, but never that the House meet without deciding and taking the vote later.

He maintained that the motion was inadmissible because, to stretch a point, it even held out the possibility that a decision could be taken after three or even five years. The members of the House were obliged to respect the Constitution, and the Speaker was in duty bound to decide on the matter.

The Speaker delivered his ruling after 80 minutes and the House then started to debate the motion, which was moved by Dr Borg on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.