The way our parliamentary members acted regarding the Bill to eliminate vilification from being a criminal offence has given me the opportunity to further research past parliamentary debates and interview former members of Parliament.

As often happens when researching, one is in for surprises. The two deputies from the Labour side who historically were most knowledgeable of parliamentary procedures were Dom Mintoff and Lorry Sant. The surprise was Lorry Sant. Mr Sant had no university education but he must have had a very good memory. He was one of the deputies who made it a point to attend Parliament regularly and must have memorized the rulings given during sittings.

Mr Sant was surely one of those deputies on the Labour bench who was making good use of points of order and references to Standing Orders. Between 1971 and 1976, Labour had one of its best Speakers in Emmanuel Attard Bezzina. Procedure was at times a point of contention between Mr Mintoff and Mr Attard Bezzina. There were interesting exchanges between them on points of order.

From this research, it results that the current Nationalist MP who at present knows parliamentary procedure well is Dr Mario de Marco. Perhaps, the NP Parliamentary group should use his expertise more to avoid embarrassing replies about parliamentary procedures.

The last member of Parliament who questioned the right of MPs to ask for an individual vote on each and every item in a bill was Karmenu Vella. Mr Vella sustained this argument during one of the last sittings of the Labour Government between 1996-1998. The bill in question was intended to regulate Tourism Services. During that legislature, Vella was the minister responsible for tourism. Mr Vella opposed Dom Mintoff’s request for a separate vote on each item of this bill on the basis that Mr Mintoff had already voted in favour of this bill in the second reading.

Mr Mintoff's answer is true to character and shows that unlike all the criticism that is thrown at this politician, he was a staunch defender of parliament and parliamentary procedure. Mintoff asked for a separate vote on each item of the bill. The chairman of the committee had to consult the Speaker and the Speaker allowed the House to start voting on each and every item of this bill. Here is Mr Mintoff’s reply to Karmenu Vella:

Onor. Karmenu Vella: Din inti [Mintoff] vvotajt favurha fis-Second Reading.

Onor. Dom Mintoff: Fis-Second Reading nittrattwaw il-prinċipju: M’intix se tgħallimni l-proċedura tal-Parlament lili! Fis-Second Reading nittrattaw il-prinċipju ta’ l-abbozz ta’ liġi u mhux id-dettalji. Id-dettalji issa qed niddiskutuhom…! [Malta, Debates tal-Kamra tad-Deputati, It-Tmien Parliament, Seduta Nru. 241, it-Tlieta 14 ta’ Lulju 1998, p. 1066].

Basically, Mintoff was saying here that when Parliament is discussing the particulars of a law, irrespective of whether the discussion is in the second or third reading, Parliament has the right to discuss each and every act and ask for a separate vote on each clause. Back then, the Nationalist Opposition supported Mr Mintoff’s claim that MPs had a right to ask for a vote on each item of the bill.

This right is also supported by Erskine May's handbook on parliamentary procedure. Now in its Twenty-Fourth edition, this book discusses this right for a separate vote in two sections. It discusses the right of MPs to ask for amendments and even to question a bill during both the second and third reading. This means that they can ask for individual voting on each and every clause. For reference purposes, these are covered in pages 548-550. Then, in page 590, it lays down the procedure for amending a bill.

Erskine May makes it clear that amendments can still be made at the third reading stage. Hence, the MP is in a position right up to the final stage to propose amendments to any bill, if he or she wishes to do so. This is extremely important when MPs do not agree with items in a bill on matters of principle. Therefore, MPs can vote in principle in favour of a bill in the first reading but then start asking for a separate vote on each and every item of the bill in the second or third reading because there are clauses with which they disagree. I am stating this, as in future, similar situations to that of vilification are bound to arise with issues such as euthanasia. I hope that next time round the Nationalist Parliamentary Group will have pulled up its socks.

When MPs are faced with such situations, they have a right to ask for an amendment of the bill, or that particular clause, with which they disagree, to be treated separately as part of another bill. If the governing majority does not consent to this right, then those opposing, even if in a minority, have a right to ask for division on each and every clause. Naturally, they could vote against the whole bill.

At Westminster, the parliamentary tactic of opposing clauses in a bill rather than a whole law, was successfully adopted by the Labour Party in Opposition during Margaret Thatcher’s time. This tactic paid off, as eventually Labour won the election. Thatcher was a very strong political figure, who sought to ride roughshod over Labour. I am sure that Mintoff was inspired by this tactic when he, single-handed, confronted Alfred Sant and started asking for voting on each and every item in a bill. Given the large majority that the Malta's Labour Party holds in Parliament, the NP would be wise to learn more from these past procedures to become a strong and constructive opposition.

In truth, the Opposition has at least seven options when confronted with situations that are problematic or go against its political principles.

The first is to ask the Speaker for an itemized vote.

The second is for the Opposition to give a free vote to its members on the bill. This is Muscat’s tactic when confronted with a controversial bill and when not all his MPs agree with him.

The third is to abstain.

The fourth is to vote against it completely on principle.

The fifth is even more draconian and as an individual told Dr Jason Azzopardi on his Facebook Page, the Opposition should walk out of Parliament.

Sixth is for the Opposition to ask for a separate bill regulating that item of the bill about which they do not agree with or ask for an amendment.

The seventh is that of not asking for a division, with the result that the bill is passed without a vote being taken. This is the worst move of all, as in this case the political party ends up pleasing no one.

Moreover, our recent parliamentary history has shown that the MPs have a right to ask the Speaker up to the end, that is, even before a vote is taken in the third reading. In this case, the Nationalist Party made history. It was the current Leader of the Opposition, Dr. Simon Busuttil, who established this principle. He asked for a ruling before taking a vote in the third reading when Parliament was discussing the American University. The Speaker, Dr Anglu Farrugia accepted the right of an MP to ask for a ruling even in such an advanced stage. The ruling to this effect is no. 63, which is published in volume 4 of the series Is-Sedja Titkellem. Therefore, a ruling from the Speaker could always be requested even before the taking of the third and last definitive vote.

This analysis shows the inerrant strengths within our parliamentary system. It gives even a single MP power to call the shots. This is Dom Mintoff’s gift to those MPs who want to oppose government on matters of principle on his hundredth birthday!