The Opposition’s private members’ bill on judicial appointments is a money bill that requires the President’s assent for debate based on Cabinet’s advice, the House Business Committee heard this evening.

Speaker Anġlu Farrugia said he had asked the Attorney General’s advice on the matter and it was received this afternoon.

The announcement angered the Opposition, which had been insisting that its private member's bill on judicial appointments should be debated this Thursday, which, it said, was reserved for Opposition business in terms of standing orders. The shadow minister for justice, Jason Azzopardi, expressed his anger in a Facebook post following the committee's meeting (see below) 

Justice Minister Owen Bonnici said that he met Dr Azzopardi and explained the general principles of the government's own bill on judicial reform, which, he believed, was better than that presented by the Opposition both in the detail of appointment methods and because it also included accountability and the pension of members of the judiciary. It was a holistic exercise which reflected the Bonello Commission recommendations.

He said that he had since realised that the Opposition Bill also proposed a raise in the retirement age of members of the judiciary, rendering it a money bill.

While the Opposition could present a Private Member’s Bill, it could not present a money bill as this required the President’s assent based on Cabinet’s approval.

March 8, he said, was planned for the beginning of the debate on the government’s bill, which was being published in the next hours.

Nationalist Party whip David Agius said the Opposition believed the debate should be held on Thursday during Opposition time, according to rulings which had been given.

Mr Agius said the raising of the retirement age would not increase any expense and the Opposition was insisted on a debate next Thursday.

Labour whip Godfrey Farrugia said parliamentary business on Thursday alternated between the government and the Opposition. The first Thursday was taken by the government at the beginning of the legislature and the second in November was taken to debate an Opposition Bill.

European Affairs Minister Louis Grech the Attorney General’s advice could not be ignored since it was a Constitutional decision.

The government was proposing that the Opposition withdrew its Bill, removed the parts that rendered it a money bill and retabled it. Should it do so, it would also be debated on March 8.

Mr Agius said that when the retirement age was increased from 60 to 65 there had been no message from the President.

He also mentioned other instances where a precedent was set. He said this now had to be followed.

Mr Grech said that independently of any precedents, there was also a decision by the Attorney General which had to be followed.

Dr Bonnici pointed out that the Opposition's Bill was also creating an authority, involving an additional expense on the government. He noted that no precedents for this had been presented.

A ruling from the Speaker is pending on whether next Thursday is government or Opposition business day and on whether the Opposition Bill can be debated.

Presenting a schedule of business for the coming weeks, Dr Farrugia said that a debate on the chairman for the Environment Committee would be debated on March 14.

Mr Agius asked which motion was to be debated, whether it was the Opposition’s or the government’s. He noted that the Opposition’s was presented first, back in November and it should be debated first.

Dr Farrugia replied that the motion to be debated was the government’s. Parliamentary Secretary Deborah Schembri said the government’s motion should take precedence.

Mr Agius said the Opposition did not agree with this decision and would take the necessary action.