Parliament is heading towards uncharted waters as it gets down to debate a divorce Bill piloted by two MPs from both sides of the House, according to the parliamentary whips.
This is the first time a law is being proposed by MPs in their private capacity, setting a precedent that requires agreement on the procedure to be adopted.
Nationalist Party Whip David Agius and his Labour counterpart, Joe Mizzi, yesterday confirmed talks were under way to establish the technical procedure to be followed in Parliament. “I expect the procedure will be ironed out by the end of June to enable us to proceed to the Second Reading of the divorce Bill in July,” Mr Agius said.
In the Second Reading, MPs will debate the principles of the Bill in the plenary and, after a vote is taken, the Bill goes into committee stage where a more technical discussion on each article of the law takes place. Mr Agius said the difficulty in this case was that the Bill was not piloted by a minister or government but by two MPs from both sides of the House.
“The committee is normally composed of a chairman and two members nominated by the government and two members nominated by the opposition. Given the particular circumstances, we are discussing whether the committee can be chaired by the Speaker and allow the possibility for all MPs to take part and propose amendments during the technical discussions,” Mr Agius said. He insisted that no discussions were being held about the merits or content of the Bill and the method of voting would not be changed.
The Bill was given a first reading on Wednesday and is expected to be published in the Government Gazette early next week.
In the committee stage, MPs can also call and hear experts, something that is impractical in the plenary.
The procedural talks are happening as speculation mounts on how MPs will vote when decision time beckons.
Labour MP Adrian Vassallo and Minister Austin Gatt have declared they will vote no while Labour MP Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca said she will abstain.
Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco said he would vote yes.
“While I have my personal reservations on the concept of a ‘no fault’ divorce, I recognise and accept that, as parliamentarians, we should now concentrate on putting through a Bill that reflects the wishes of the people as expressed in the referendum. I, nevertheless, respect the decision of those parliamentarians who deem it opportune to vote against the proposed Bill or abstain for personal reasons,” Dr de Marco said. “It was indeed us parliamentarians that opted to put the matter before the people to voice their opinion to us. In the circumstances, therefore, the result of the referendum cannot be ignored and must be respected. Parliament must now seek to put into effect the decision of the people as expressed in the referendum.
“I will be playing my part to ensure that this is done by voting in favour of a Bill that reflects the principles underlying the question put in the referendum,” he added, pointing out he would play a part in ensuring that all the necessary safeguards to protect the interests of children were in place and the obligation to pay maintenance was enforced.
Meanwhile, in an article appearing on The Times today (see page 12), Dr Gatt is insisting that Labour leader Joseph Muscat has lost his parliamentary majority to introduce divorce by virtue of Dr Vassallo and Ms Coleiro Preca’s decisions to vote against and abstain.
Dr Gatt says abstentions are not possible in Parliament and these will be counted with the No vote, causing a problem for Dr Muscat.
However, Dr Gatt’s analysis flies in the face of what article 71 of the Constitution states about voting in Parliament. The Constitution makes it clear that “all questions proposed for decision” in Parliament “shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members thereof present and voting”. This means that a Bill will pass if a majority of MPs present vote in favour. It is also possible for MPs to abstain by either not attending for the vote or declaring they will not vote despite being present.
A similar situation had happened in the 1996-1998 legislature when Labour MP Dom Mintoff had abstained on a number of occasions denying the Labour government of the time its one-seat majority. Mr Mintoff’s abstention was not counted as a no and motions had to be carried by the Speaker’s casting vote.
ksansone@timesofmalta.com