Wrangling on the interpretation of parliamentary standing orders has started in the wake of notice given by the Opposition of amendments to the adjournment motion so that the House will immediately debate a motion on justice and home affairs, and a motion calling for the resignation of Richard Cachia Caruana.
The government wants those debates to be held after the May 9 vote on the Budget measures bill but Nationalist MP Franco Debono and, now, the opposition, want an earlier debate and votes.
During Bondi+ yesterday, Nationalist MP Francis Zammit Dimech noted that the Opposition adjournment motions provide that the pending motions be debated 'tomorrow'
With the three-day notice having been presented yesterday, that means that these adjournment motions will come before parliament on Monday, he said. Therefore in terms of what the Opposition itself was saying, the debates should be held on Tuesday, which is May 1, a public holiday.
Opposition representative Owen Bonnici said it all depended on how one interpreted the three (working) days, although he then conceded it would be Monday. He argued however that the debate would not need to be held on Tuesday, to which Dr Zammit Dimech again retorted by reading the exact words of the motions.
Dr Bonnici repeated several times that while the adjournment motions were calling for an urgent debate (before the May 9 Budget measures vote), the Opposition, as Dr Muscat had said, remained prepared to reach agreement with the government on a parliamentary timetable, as long as the motions were debated within a reasonable time.
He pointed out that the motion on justice and home affairs had been pending since December.
The Opposition, he said, had been constrained to act in terms of Standing Orders because the government was continuing to put off the debate.
Furthermore, the government had decided on the May 9 date for the Budget measures vote without consulting the opposition.
Dr Zammit Dimech said one would have expected the Opposition to congratulate the government for setting the date for the budget vote, especially as it was key for measures such as reduced tax for families with children. The government had previously been criticised for not saying when the vote would be taken.
When presenter Lou Bondi asked what would happen when the adjournment motions came before the House, Dr Bonnici said one expected standing orders to be followed and for the pending motions to be debated. Dr Zammit Dimech said, however, that they would join the queue of pending motions for debate, like other motions, and in any democratic state the government set the agenda of the House.
The way how adjournment motions are presented in the House has long been a subject of controversy because of grey areas in the rules of the House. In the late 1980s a Labour Opposition MP was allowed - at the time of interruption of business - to move a motion for the House to be adjourned 'sine die'. With most MPs having been away when the surprise vote was called, the motion was approved and formal procedures then had to be followed for the House to be summoned once more on the following day.
Following other similar cases (such as when the House was adjourned to a minute past midnight after another Opposition amendment motion) Speakers of the House (including Dr Lawrence Gonzi in 1990) ruled that motions of this type were contested business which required three days notice.
Informed sources said that the Opposition could have moved a procedural motion instead of the adjournment motions to set a date for debate of its pending motions. But a procedural motion would itself require a debate, possibly stretching beyond May 9, when the budget measures bill will be taken. The purpose of the adjournment motion is for an immediate vote when the question is put that the House adjourns, although one still has to see what will happen in the House especially as voting is itself regulated by other procedural motions.
Reacting to the above report, Dr Debono in a comment to timesofmalta.com recalled that at the end of January 2001, a report was tabled in the House of Representatives highlighting the need to reform Standing Orders. It also made proposals for reform.
The need to update the Standing Orders – the rules of the House – had long been felt even at that time, he said, but 11 years on, nothing had been done and even some of the reform proposals had now become outdated. Parliament was continuing to function by means of outdated and archaic procedures.
“No holistic reform has been done in 25 years. Instead of reviewing how parliament functions, we are spending €80 million on a new parliament building."
Dr Debono said he had called several times for the Orders to be updated, to reflect a modern European parliament. Unfortunately however, this and other democratic institutions had been left in a state of abandon.