Tonio Borg insists PN group has to discuss proposed referendum question

Foreign Minister Tonio Borg said today that the government could not say today when a motion for the holding of a divorce referendum would be debated in Parliament, since the matter still had to be discussed by the PN parliamentary group.

He pointed out at a stormy meeting of the House Business Committee that the motion was only moved last Monday and in much less important matters, the Opposition always requested a week to take a decision.

He promised a reply as soon as possible.

Anglu Farrugia and Joe Mizzi, speaking for the Opposition, suggested that the motion be discussed on Friday week in an all-day debate concluded with a vote.

Dr Borg said it was hoped that the two sides would agree on a date and the procedure to be followed, but he could not, at this stage, agree on a date.

Dr Farrugia noted that the prime minister had already spoken of granting a free vote.

Dr Borg said the prime minister had spoken before the text of the motion was issued.

The government, he said, did not intend any delaying tactics, but it would not tolerate any imposition. This motion was moved just last Monday and it needed to be discussed, particularly with regard to the proposed referendum question.

He could not agree on Friday week because the parliamentary group still had to meet.

Dr Farrugia said this was a simple issue of going to the people.

Dr Borg said he wanted to congratulate Labour for finally coming round to holding a referendum, which was not the case in the past. However, the referendum question was crucial and the question proposed by Labour was not fully based on the Bill before the House.

Dr Borg also pointed out that three ministers needed to attend meetings abroad next week.

Mr Mizzi said the national interest came first, and while he would consider everything, this came first (interruptions and shouting). The opposition, he said, was proposing a period longer than a week for the debate to be held.

Interjecting, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando - who is not a member of the committee but spoke with permission - said a majority in the House wanted the Bill to be discussed within two weeks.

Disagreeing with Dr Borg, he said the proposed question related directly to the important elements of the Bill, which were that people had to be separated for four years before they could be eligible for divorce, that the marriage would have irrevocably broken down, and there were arrangements for maintenance and the care of children.

Dr Pullicino Orlando said he appreciated the free discussion in the PN executive committee. In his concluding remarks on Saturday, Dr Gonzi said that if a referendum was held, the question had to be related to the Bill. He also showed that if not this week, the debate should start next week.

In the national interest, Dr Pullicino Orlando said, the people wanted this matter to be resolved.

"It's about time we move forward, a majority in the House wants the debate to be held in the coming days, and this does not mean only the PL and myself," Dr Pullicino Orlando said.

Dr Borg said the prime minister had spoken about the Bill, not this motion, on Saturday. However, everyone had to be given the time to prepare the debate, and adequate time had to be allowed for the debate itself.

Dr Pullicino Orlando, addressing himself to Dr Borg, insisted that the divorce question was fair and said one could not have a position which was more conservative than this. As co-presenter of the Bill, he would not accept changes.

As for the time frame, it was the prime minister who said that 'the bill' should be debated this week or next week. And, Dr Pullicino Orlando, if there was something which was contentious it was the bill, not the motion calling for a referendum. So he could not understand how one could delay further.

Dr Borg said the situation was sifferent than that of Ireland (on which the Bill is based) and in that country the two referenda were held after a Bill was discussed in the House.

In Malta's case, the proposed question was first published last Monday and the PN group needed to discuss it. However it was positive that everyone agreed that a referendum would be held.

Mr Mizzi said that once the government did not want to set a date, the Opposition, in line with standing orders, would formally request that the motion be debated tomorrow, which the standing orders reserved for private business.