UPDATED: Sant insists 'fascist' motion is inadmissible. Speaker allows debate

Former Opposition leader Alfred Sant insisted in Parliament this evening that a procedural motion to regulate the timetable of the House and its voting procedure was unconstitutional because it impinged on the right of Parliament to take decisions.

In the second objection to the procedural motion in as many days, Dr Sant pointed out that the Constitution in article 65, specifically established that the main role of Parliament was to enact laws.

But this procedural motion was limiting the days when MPs could vote, which was the ultimate function for the enactment of laws.

Through this procedural motion, therefore, the House was being asked to decide not to decide. This was totally unacceptable and had never happened before, he said.

It was unacceptable that MPs could only decide when the government said so.

Furthermore, once the Executive and the Legislative were separate, it was unacceptable that the Executive, for the convenience of its ministers, was imposing a change to the timetable of the Legislative.

If the country was going down this fascist path, one should be clear about it.

Malta had a minority government and could not continue to concentrate more powers on the Cabinet, Dr Sant said.

Tonio Borg, Leader of the House, said this was a government which had a relative majority. And if the government was in the minority, the Opposition was in a smaller minority.

The Constitution laid down the manner how the government proposed legislation in the House. And if Dr Sant felt the Constitution was being violated, he should apply to the Courts, because this was not the role of the Speaker.

Nonetheless, there was nothing in the procedural motion which violated article 65 of the Constitution. This motion was not limiting debate or the way MPs voted. What it was laying down was that division votes would be postponed to Wednesdays for not more than a week. The Constitution empowered the House to regulate its own procedure, which, therefore, included postponing a division vote. But there was no restriction on the vote. Nor was the Cabinet assuming new powers.

Furthermore, this motion was only being moved because the Opposition had not granted pairing.

Joseph Muscat, Leader of the Opposition, said the decision not to grant pairing was only taken after notice of this motion was given.

Dr Sant said he was shocked by what Dr Borg had said. He had implied that the Chair should not interfere to safeguard the Constitution.

By Dr Borg’s thinking in this proposed fascist procedural motion, the Cabinet could end up deciding that the House would only take a decision once every three, or five years.

This motion, Dr Sant insisted, should be inadmissible and the Speaker had a duty to stop it.

The sitting was then suspended for over an hour for the Speaker, Louis Galea, to consider his ruling.

In his decision, Dr Galea ruled that the procedural motion did not clash with article 65 of the Constitution or Standing Orders and was therefore admissible.

As for voting procedures, this was considered as being a procedural matter and therefore subject to a decision by the House although one would prefer matters to be taken in their natural order.

The Speaker said the practice to date was for the government to establish the order of business of the House.

He also pointed out that since Malta was now in the EU, minsters and MPs had a duty to be present for meetings abroad.

The House then started to debate the motion, which was moved by Dr Borg on behalf of the Prime Minister.