Avoid the wrong half

The Nationalist Party media has been defending the Prime Minister's controversial procedural motion for parliamentary business by stating that the idea of deferred voting, or the idea that the vote is taken days after the calling for a vote in the House of Representatives, is part and parcel of modern procedure in parliaments like the House of Commons and the Italian Camera.

Therefore, the PN press explained, the Prime Minister imposed absolutely nothing undemocratic or out of this world when promulgating the unpleasant provision that votes (the so-called divisions where each member of the House declares his/her vote) are voiced on a different day from when the division is called for.

As Timothy Garton Ash would say, we expect many things of politicians in a well-functioning parliamentary democracy but living in truth is not one of them. In this particular case the PN press is stubbornly working in half truth, attempting to present part of the truth as if it were the whole.

Allow me to explain.

The first point to be made is this. With all due respect to our Italian colleagues, the manner in which the Italian Camera regulates its parliamentary procedure or how all the other parliaments in the world - with the notable exception of the House of Commons - regulate their business may interest us only from the point of view of general knowledge and nothing else.

In so far as crude and actual law is concerned it is only the House of Commons that has relevance to our parliamentary procedure not only because it is the mother of our Parliament but because our Standing Orders expressly state that "in all cases not provided for by these Standing Orders, resort shall be had to the rules, forms, usages and practice of the Commons' House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, which shall be followed as far as they can be applied to the proceedings of the House with due regard to the special nature of the Constitution".

The second point. It is true that the concept of deferred divisions is part and parcel of the House of Commons' practice. However, the way in which the Prime Minister bulldozed through the concept of deferred divisions in our parliamentary practice for the first time in history is light years away from the practice obtaining in the House of Commons. While the House of Commons uses deferred divisions as a way to expedite matters relating to a particular class of motions and Bills, it jealously and very reasonably retained the usual immediate voting principle in the most important Bills and motions, including all financial matters. The concept of deferred divisions was introduced in the House of Commons as late as the year 2000 after a thinking process, so much so that the first reference to this class of division in Erskine May's parliamentary bible is found in the 23rd edition of the book. The reason why the concept of deferred divisions was introduced in the House of Commons was explained by the then Leader of the House, Margaret Beckett, in the respective debate when stating: "I know that many colleagues on both sides of the House feel that the sheer unpredictability of being so detained without even being sure that there will be a vote at all is one of the worst aspects of our procedures".

Deferred votings in the UK were therefore not introduced for the sake of governability, as was in Lawrence Gonzi's case, but purely for facilitating the life of parliamentarians and sending them home at a more predictable time.

Then, again, the House of Commons realised that the deferred divisions have their darker side and that they should not be used as the general order of the day. As the conservative MP Angela Browning explained, the principle that votes are not cast immediately after the debate means that those votes could now be decided outside the House or be subject to third party influence.

Indeed, this is so true. In a country like ours, which is governed by parliamentary democracy, where the government lives as long as it commands the majority of seats in Parliament, deferred divisions carry with them the danger that a member of Parliament, due to "third party influence", may change his mind on a particular vote from the day of the calling of the vote till the day of the actual voting and, thus, "votes could be decided outside the House".

To iron out as much as possible this danger, the House of Commons very intelligently decided that deferred voting should not be applied on the most important business of the House. Therefore, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons expressly state that deferred divisions do not apply to financial matters, consideration of estimates, money resolutions, ways and means business, questions of voting on estimates and so forth. Of course, the idea is that such important parliamentary business should be voted immediately upon the termination of the debate.

In our case, the Prime Minister decided to impose the concept of deferred division precisely for the sake of governability and, unlike the situation obtaining in the UK, on every single Bill under the sun, independently of the weight and importance of the same or the financial import de quo.

In simple words, always beware of the half truth: You may have gotten hold of the wrong half!

Dr Bonnici MP is the Labour Party spokesman for youth and culture.

owen@bonniciellul.com