House bogged down for hours

Parliament was until the early hours of this morning bogged down in procedural wrangling over the approval of the minutes of last Thursday night's sitting, which was characterised by uproar over voting on the opposition motion on the Delimara power station contract.

A sworn declaration by Labour MP Justyne Caruana insisting that she had voted in favour of the opposition motion was presented to the House, along with declarations by all the other 33 Labour MPs saying that they had heard Dr Caruana vote "yes" on Thursday night.

The declarations were presented to the House by Labour MP Anġlu Farrugia as MPs argued about procedural matters in the wake of last Thursday night's stormy sitting.

Yesterday's sitting did not even get beyond the initial stage of the approval of the minutes. Immediately after the prayer, Mr Speaker Michael Frendo said the Chair regretted how matters had developed on Thursday night (during the voting on the opposition motion on the power station extension contract) and wanted to make a statement.

Interjecting immediately on a point of order, opposition whip Joe Mizzi said the Chair had a conflict of interest in this issue. Furthermore, such statements could not be made at this stage and the minutes had to be approved first.

Dr Frendo said the Standing Orders did not regulate this matter, and he, therefore, referred to Erskine May (the "bible" on parliamentary procedure), which did not exclude a statement at this stage. He said he wanted to make a statement over the procedure to be followed in future on voting.

After various exchanges, Dr Frendo suspended the sitting to consider his ruling.

After some 30 minutes, he ruled that Standing Orders made no reference as to when the Chair could make a statement to the House and it appeared that the Chair could make a statement at any stage. Furthermore, there was no conflict of interest in the Chair deciding to make a statement on voting procedures.

He added, however, that the Chair was reserving its right to make its statement at a later stage.

Amid further exchanges Mr Mizzi said the Speaker had violated the Constitution by giving a ruling on a matter on which he had a conflict of interest. This was something which the opposition could contest in court. Dr Frendo could not continue to occupy the Chair until this was settled.

Leader of the House Tonio Borg said Mr Mizzi was criticising the Chair for giving a ruling which he himself had requested.

Mr Mizzi said the Chair should deliver a ruling on whether the Constitution had been broken.

The sitting was suspended for a second time at 6.50 p.m.

At 8.50 p.m. when the sitting resumed, the Chair said it was its duty to rule and it would be a shortcoming on its part if it did not rule on matters related to the proceedings of the House. The Chair could in such circumstances rule on matters related to the Constitution.

The House then moved to the correction of the minutes.

Labour MP Anġlu Farrugia called for an amendment to the minutes on how the voting took place on Thursday night.

He read a sworn declaration by Justyne Caruana saying that during the voting she had voted in favour of the opposition motion. He also read a sworn declaration by Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat saying that he had heard Dr Caruana vote "yes".

Dr Farrugia went on to table similar declarations by all the Labour MPs. He also presented a recording to show that Dr Caruana had voted "yes".

Dr Borg said the minutes as presented to the House were accurate and did not need to be amended.

Dr Farrugia then moved another amendment to delete references in the minutes to the second vote taken on Thursday night, saying that the vote was ultra vires.

The amendments were moved for a vote.

The first vote was taken at 9.25 p.m. and the first opposition amendment was defeated with 35 votes against and 34 in favour.

The second amendment, the vote on which was taken at 9.45 p.m., was also defeated with 35 votes against and 34 in favour.

When the Speaker called for the approval of the minutes, Labour MP Alfred Sant called on him to remove the reference to reports made by the Clerk of the House and the assistant clerk. He explained that the minutes should be a mirror of what was stated in Parliament and it was normal practice for internal or private communications not to be included.

The minutes failed to indicate to whom the report was made and what the report consisted of. That was ultra vires. If the minutes were not corrected they would include a declaration which the MPs had not heard.

Dr Borg rebutted that the House had already taken a vote in favour of retaining the minutes in the form they were in, and this after Dr Farrugia had called for the deletion of the paragraph in question.

Dr Sant then asked the Speaker to give a ruling on the admissibility or otherwise of references to internal communications by the Clerk of the House and her assistant in the minutes.

The sitting was suspended for the fifth time for the Speaker to give a ruling.

At 10.40 p.m. Dr Frendo stated that Dr Sant was in order to raise the issue. He noted, however, that at that stage the Chair did not have the power to amend the minutes itself because these were already being considered by the House.

Dr Sant moved an amendment to delete the sentence in its entirety.

Dr Caruana confirmed her vote last Thursday and called on the Speaker to inform the House why the Clerk had said that she (Dr Caruana) had been heard voting against the motion without drawing her attention to repeat the vote. She also asked the Speaker to indicate whose vote had been heard and whose vote was not, accusing the Chair of complicity with the Deputy Prime Minister. She insisted that her name be removed from the minutes, saying she was being discriminated against.

Carmelo Abela, Deputy Speaker who resigned last week, pointed out that Dr Sant's amendment could not be put to the vote without being seconded. Dr Caruana seconded.

Dr Sant's amendment was defeated and the opposition called a division.

When the House reconvened at 11.10 pm, the amendment was defeated with 35 votes against and 34 in favour.

Dr Caruana reiterated her previous point of order and asked for a ruling. The House was suspended for a seventh time just before 11.15 p.m.

The Speaker ruled that, because the Clerk of the House had since gone overseas for health reasons, he should pronounce himself after her return.

Both sides of the House agreed, without division, that the time of Thursday's adjournment should read "1.25 a.m." and not "1.25 p.m". Dr Farrugia's motion for the correction was seconded by government whip David Agius.

When the Speaker was moving to call a vote on the approval of the minutes, Mr Abela said they could not be approved before the Clerk of the House could give her version of events. The ruling was important and would have a direct impact on the minutes the House was being asked to approve.

The Speaker said the ruling could still be given at a later sitting. This was a request for a particular ruling, not an amendment. The Chair had given enough opportunities for amendments, which had all been voted on, and the minutes must now go to the vote.

Mr Abela insisted, saying even common sense indicated what he was saying.

Dr Caruana said that if the Chair wanted an amendment on her case it could easily be formulated. She was asking that her name be dropped from the minutes because only hers had been mentioned. None of the other MPs had been smeared in this way. This amounted to discrimination.

At the end of another 20-minute division, the amendment was defeated with 35 votes against and 34 in favour.

When the Speaker was about to ask for the approval of the minutes, Dr Sant asked how the minutes, if approved, could be amended at a later date, after the return of the Clerk of the House. The point at issue was that the minutes could later be affected by the Chair's later ruling. What would be the procedure involved?

The Speaker said he could not see why, since his ruling was being postponed, the House could not vote on the minutes. Dr Sant's was not necessarily a sound argument. The minutes could not be changed on the basis of a ruling, but by amendment.

Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg said the Speaker's ruling had not been contested. Dr Caruana had moved an amendment which had been voted down.

Insisting on his point, Dr Sant said the House had voted on the amendment to remove Dr Caruana's name from the minutes, but not on why only she had been mentioned by name and who were the other MPs who had not been heard to vote. He respected the Chair, but felt that MPs were not being respected in return. His point was on how the House would proceed after the Speaker would give his ruling on the Clerk's return.

On the Speaker's maintaining that the House should vote to approve the minutes, Dr Sant said he was asking for specific answers, especially since the Chair had excluded itself from amending the minutes. The Speaker must say how the House should proceed.

The Speaker suspended the House to give yet another ruling, in which he later said that even after his earlier ruling, the amendment moved by Dr Caruana had been defeated. In the circumstances, the Chair could not even decide not to go to a vote on the minutes.

The minutes were finally approved after yet another division, by 35 votes in favour and 34 against, at 12.55 a.m.

The House stands adjourned till this evening.