In rejecting the Opposition request for the House to debate today its motion on the Government’s plans to privatise 32 car parks, Mr Speaker Michael Frendo said that the Chair had to follow the existing rules, even though it appreciated that they needed to be updated.
A majority is only determined by vote
“At present all the keys are in the Government’s hands,” he said.
In a ruling delivered after the sitting was suspended for two-and-a-half hours, he said this was a substantive motion, as opposed to a dilatory one, and it had been filed according to requirements laid down in Standing Orders. Substantive motions did not need to be moved by a minister. Three days’ notice had to be given, as was done in this case.
Quoting a ruling by Speaker Myriam Spiteri Debono in 1997, Dr Frendo said the Opposition was wrong to present the motion during the time of uncontested business.
Furthermore, one could not argue that the motion was backed by a majority and therefore had to be debated, since one could only determine a majority once a vote had been taken.
Speaker Spiteri Debono, when ruling on an adjournment motion moved by then Opposition Leader Eddie Fenech Adami, had said that even if the motion were admissible, it could not be moved at the time reserved for uncontested business. She had also said that the motion had to appear on the Order Paper.
Dr Frendo continued that such a motion could be put on the Order Paper only by agreement of the House Business Committee or by the Leader of the House.
Standing Orders had actually reserved alternate Thursdays for private business, but unfortunately it had become the practice at the beginning of the parliamentary session to regulate procedure by a procedural motion which further undermined this.
Dr Frendo revealed that since 1976, more than 40 private motions had been presented but not moved in the House. The Chair therefore supported moves for an updating of Standing Orders.
He said he would be convening another meeting of the House Business Committee next Thursday in the hope that some sort of agreement could be reached between the Government and the Opposition on this debate.
Opposition Whip Joe Mizzi had raised the issue just before the end of business, a few minutes before the adjournment of the House was due to be moved at 9 p.m. At the time, Nationalist MP Beppe Fenech Adami was in possession, speaking on the government motion to ratify the EU stability treaty.
Mr Mizzi said that it was clear at the last sitting of the House Business Committee that the Opposition’s request for an urgent debate was backed by a majority in the House.
The procedures of the House provided that the Opposition and, indeed, any MP, may move adjournment motions. Furthermore, the Standing Orders provided that the House may regulate its business and a ruling in February 2009 provided that any Standing Order may be suspended on a motion moved after notice when approved by a majority of MPs present and voting.
The rulings by the current Speaker also made clear that anyone could move an adjournment motion or any procedural motion as long as there was sufficient notice and the motion was moved before the end of business.
On Friday, the Opposition presented a motion that the House should be adjourned for urgent debate of the motion on the privatisation of the car parks.
The Labour whip said one of the roles of the Speaker was to safeguard the rights of the minority. This, however, was a rare case where the minority actually enjoyed majority support, reinforcing its call for urgent debate of the Opposition’s motion today or on any other date which may be agreed upon.
Leader of the House Tonio Borg said he did not think that Mr Mizzi had a right to move his procedural motion when the House was still debating other business.
The Government was not against holding the debate but there was no obligation for the motion on the car parks to be debated immediately, despite the three-day notice. Motions would be debated according to the legislative priorities.
Dr Borg argued that it was only ministers who could move the adjournment motion. Furthermore, the Opposition motion gave no date when the debate on the car parks privatisation should be held. To say “tomorrow” did not hold water since motions ordinarily carried dates.
Franco Debono said the request also included his motion calling for the resignation of Austin Gatt. Mr Speaker Michael Frendo said no such request had been made.
Dr Debono said they were related. He insisted that Mr Mizzi was in order when he raised his point. He said the Constitution prevailed over Standing Orders and the Chair should therefore consider that the Standing Orders had not been comprehensively amended for a quarter of a century.
By Dr Borg’s yardstick, no motion could be presented without the government’s approval. Such argumentation was dangerous.
He said the government stayed in office only for as long as it enjoyed the support of the House, but it had no support on this motion, in the same way as it would not enjoy support on the Budget. The Prime Minister had spoken of the “moment of truth” and, Dr Debono said, he would reply: “Bring it on”.
Dr Debono referred briefly to the reply to a parliamentary question and said it was contempt of Parliament that Richard Cachia Caruana still held the title of ambassador.
Anġlu Farrugia (PL) said the Opposition’s motion and the procedure that were followed mirrored the requirements laid down by Speaker Louis Galea (in 2009).
Mr Mizzi said a procedural motion had been presented and if required, the House should vote on it and that would prevail over anything else.
Dr Frendo suspended the sitting at 9.30 p.m. to give a ruling and reconvened this morning at 10 minutes after midnight.