Last Tuesday’s turn of events in Parliament that saw the session winding up early because of a lack of speakers on both sides of the house was an unforeseen and isolated incident, according to government whip Godfrey Farrugia.

At about 7pm on Tuesday evening, Speaker Anglu Farrugia took a look around the House, which was in the process of debating an endless stream of bills of law, amendments and committee-stage business, and saw that there were not enough MPs to carry on with the debates.

He had a short consultation with PL and PN whips Godfrey Farrugia and David Agius before suspending the sitting for 20 minutes. Upon re-emerging, the Speaker moved to adjourn parliament till Wednesday evening and gave Joe Mizzi the floor for his adjournment speech.

In a statement issued later in the evening, the PN said that the government, caught up in a crisis of corruption, had now even abandoned Parliament. The PN said that at one point, there was not a single government MP in the House for the plenary session.

Contacted about the incident by this newspaper, Dr Farrugia said that it had been an unforeseen and isolated incident.

He explains, “I was aware that the Bill was a brief amendment to our legislation during the time of the sitting. Both whips had already agreed on the previous day that the committee stage be carried in the House, as this Bill carried a President’s address.

“The Bill presented by the Finance Minister (Fond Uniku ta’ Resoluzzjoni) was an EU transposition that had a timeframe in which it was to be passed through Parliament. It is custom that all amendments of our financial laws are discussed outside the House with the Opposition spokespersons and explanatory notes are also distributed. This meeting with the Opposition was held in the previous week. 

“To my surprise, the addresses from both sides of the House were very brief and the usual protagonists in finance did not offer further addresses. Only two members addressed the House.

“As soon as I was aware of the sitting’s shortcoming, I tried to open another EU financial transposition whose preparatory workings with the Opposition spokespersons had already been carried out. Unfortunately, it had not been published in the Government Gazette so it could not be debated.”

Dr Farrugia stresses that Parliamentary agendas are agreed upon either in the House Business Committee or at a level of an amicable agreement between the two whips about five days before the House sitting.

He also says that at the time there were three ministers and two parliamentary secretaries present, apart from a number of backbenchers.

He adds: “The House adjourned earlier with ‘No Objection’ from the Opposition, because there were no speakers from either sides of the House to continue the debate on opened second readings, which formed part of the agenda and of which there were four. 

“Personally, I could have continued the debate on one of them, as I was and still am in possession of the Donation of Organs, Tissue and Cells’ Bill. I was caught without the necessary documents to proceed with the debate. Hopefully, this will be continued next Monday, where I may use the rest of my remaining 34 minutes.

“In agreement with the Opposition I also tried to open a new Bill for a second reading. This is permitted, even if it is not in accordance with the Standing Orders, as long as there is agreement from both sides. This arrangement has been frequently made use of in all legislatures. 

“There were three Bills that could be opened for the debate. Unfortunately, one of the Executive Members was actively engaged in another Bill in the Permanent Committee that enacts Bills, while the other was caught without the necessary documents as he was not pre-informed by me. Presenting technical Bills need a high level of preparation.

“Another alternative would have been to continue debating the said financial transposition by sidetracking from the focused issue, and trumpeting the government’s successes in finance and economic sectors. In hindsight, I may have missed this opportunity.”

Asked why Minister Evarist Bartolo was not present when there was meant to have been a debate on the vilification of religion law, Dr Farrugia explained: “Early in the afternoon Evarist Bartolo’s personal assistant informed me that due to unforeseen family medical circumstances, the Minister could not attend that evening’s sitting. I excused his absence.

“The Vilification Bill was the second item on the agenda. If this were to be debated, Minister Bartolo was in possession of the House. He had spoken for 24 minutes and had a right to a further 16 minutes. I could not proceed as I had to ask for his opinion, and I thought it would have been imprudent of me to have phoned him at that hour considering his circumstances.”