Opposition wants urgent debate on minister's censure motion

The Labour opposition is expecting a motion it presented on Tuesday censoring, condemning and asking for the resignation of Investments Minister Austin Gatt to be debated with urgency and without any limit on speaking time in the interest of democracy.

Labour Party deputy leader Charles Mangion and whip Joe Mizzi on Tuesday gave notice of a motion demanding the resignation of Dr Gatt over comments he made during the parliamentary sitting of May 31.

Dr Gatt had said that a large undeveloped area belonging to Maltacom was to revert to the government, but the company would in return be given ownership of the sites where telephone exchanges had been built. He had said this process needed approval by the House, but the government could make commitments because of its parliamentary majority.

Labour leader Alfred Sant said during a news conference yesterday that Labour's parliamentary group considered Dr Gatt's behaviour as scandalous and it would not accept a situation where, because the government had a majority of five, it would bulldoze over and reduce Parliament to a rubber stamp.

He described Dr Gatt's behaviour as an act of contempt and vilification of Parliament and this sentiment, he claimed, was also reflected in Speaker Anton Tabone's speech during the Sette Giugno ceremony.

Mr Tabone, Dr Sant said, appealed to all MPs to be tolerant and show reciprocal respect and respect for the institution of Parliament when carrying out their duties.

Dr Sant said that Dr Gatt's attitude contradicted the sentiment of the Speaker's speech and the issue was more serious because Dr Gatt was a minister with an important portfolio.

The Labour parliamentary group discussed the issue at length on Monday and expressed regret at the deterioration of the administration of Parliament, Dr Sant said.

He added that the incident in question was only one in a series which confirmed the government's lack of respect for Parliament and that the government was uncomfortable with Parliament's scrutiny. This was to the detriment of democracy.

When it was pointed out that Dr Gatt was denying the comments attributed to him by the opposition, Dr Sant said the transcript of the debate, published by Dr Gatt himself, confirmed what the opposition was saying and if Dr Gatt wanted to argue in that way he should do so during the debate of the motion.

Mr Mizzi said that during the May 31 sitting, Dr Gatt had been replying to his supplementary question. Because of the minister's behaviour, he had had no option but to protest by calling a quorum and in spite of the majority of five, the minister had been boasting about, the government did not manage to secure enough MPs to sustain a quorum of 14, he said.

Dr Mangion said that on that day, the minister had agreed that, technically, the law had been breached but argued that this was a risk the government could take because of its majority.

The opposition, in its motion, was asking the House to condemn the minister's behaviour and it expected the Prime Minister, who so far has been silent on the matter, to condemn Dr Gatt's statement. It was also calling for Dr Gatt's resignation and on members to reaffirm their oath to be loyal to Parliament and to the Constitution.