During the recent prolonged debate in Parliament dealing with the validity of a motion for the impeachment of a judge, both the Speaker, Anġlu Farrugia, and Carmelo Abela MP, from the government side, quoted Standing Order 38 as regards the authorisation for another member to move a motion in another MP’s stead.

Unfortunately this was not the case in a ruling by Madame Speaker in sitting no. 54 of 1997.

In that particular case, then leader of the Opposition Eddie Fenech Adami, who had moved a motion which came up for debate but was indisposed and confined to bed, was not allowed to authorise another member to move his motion. He had to get out of bed and attend the sitting.

Madame Speaker, on the basis of Standing Orders, 8, 17 and 33, chose to apply SO 197 (to resort to the rules, forms, usages and practice of the UK House of Commons whenever our Standing Orders do not provide a clear solution) and quoted Erskine May to prove that SO 38 was irrelevant to the case. In my opinion this SO is quite clear, as confirmed by thehonourable gentlemen mentioned above.

According to the said ruling, the 21st edition of Erskine May mentions two exceptions when a motion can be delegated to another member: either he must be a member on the government side or if a motion is tabled in the name of a select committee.

In my opinion Erskine May was grossly irrelevant to the case in question when our Standing Order is quite unequivocal. I do hope the bible of the Mother of Parliaments will never be used to suit any specific case especially when our own Standing Orders provide adequate guidance.