The government was repeatedly accused of being disrespectful to the House of Representatives yesterday during a 10-hour debate on a motion of no confidence in Public Investments Minister Austin Gatt. The motion was defeated.

The motion was moved following comments made by Dr Gatt during question time in the House on May 31 on the transfer of properties between Maltacom and the government as part of the privatisation of the company.

In its motion the opposition said that on May 31 Dr Gatt "in the most arrogant manner admitted lack of observance of the laws" and had said that in view of its five-seat majority, the government may break the law and then retroactively remedy the situation.

Dr Gatt denied having said those words, and also insisted that the agreement on the sale of Maltacom provided that the transfer of properties was subject to parliamentary approval. (See separate report)

The motion was introduced by opposition deputy leader Charles Mangion, who said that the minister had used comments such as that "technically it (the Maltacom deal) has to come before Parliament, but since we have a majority we are sure it will be approved by the House ..." and "if you think we cannot give guarantees since we have a majority of five in the House, we must be dreaming."

Dr Mangion said this rendered Parliament as a rubber stamp of the executive's actions, making debate irrelevant. It was the duty of Parliament to hold the government to account, and it was essential for democracy that MPs were able to question the government's actions. The government had a duty to respect the institution of Parliament and not act as if it were not accountable for it.

The government had a right to run the country, but it could not steamroll over Parliament without even giving account of its actions.

The Speaker in his Sette Giugno speech had called for greater respect by MPs to the institution of Parliament and stronger contact between the House and the people.

The Constitution spoke of the government being responsible to Parliament. But, unfortunately, the government's actions were heading in the opposite direction, as evidenced also by how many Parliamentary questions went unanswered.

There needed to be a proper distinction between the executive, Parliament and the party with proper account given to the people. Accountability was similarly demanded from other institutions, such as the regulators.

Was the House being rendered a talking shop, much like the MCESD had been described by Dr Gatt as being?

The opposition had agreed to a pairing agreement and to nominate one of its own as Deputy Speaker in the spirit of governability, but that was only good for as long as there was mutual respect and respect to the institution. If the government was to run the country in an autocratic manner, then the government itself would bear the consequences, Dr Mangion warned.

Administrative discretion should not be used in an arrogant manner, and if this continued, Malta would end up divided among tribes.

Arrogance was in evidence when local councils were not compensated after roads were damaged when they took heavy traffic as arterial roads were rebuilt, or when Mepa was bypassed by the government in the choice of sites for the golf course and Mepa was then asked to justify that choice. Much the same was happening for the extension of the development zones. The same applied to the Resources Authority with regard to power and fuel charges and the Maritime Authority with regard to port charges, which seemed to be going up instead of down.

Authorities set up by Parliament were there to counter-balance the government, not serve as its smokescreen.

In its motion the opposition was insisting that MPs should confirm their loyalty to Parliament and their respect to the concept of accountability. Those who did not should pay the political price, Dr Mangion said. MPs and the House would continue to lose the respect of the people if what the people saw was arrogance and a Parliament reduced to a rubber stamp.

Nearly all MPs spoke in the debate, with the Opposition arguing that Parliament was not being respected by the government and government speakers insisting that Dr Gatt had done nothing wrong.

Leo Brincat (MLP) described Dr Gatt as acting "like a bull in a china shop" and said the honourable thing would have been for him to step down.

Marie Louise Coleiro (MLP) said government arrogance and lack of accountability were two of the major issues being talked about by the people.

Chris Agius (MLP) said Dr Gatt's attitude was reducing the House to a rubber stamp. Dr Gatt was symptomatic of other ministers' propensity to deny real information in answer to Parliamentary questions.

Nationalist MP Mario Galea wondered how the Opposition could ever accuse the Nationalist government of eroding democracy or being disrespectful of the House given its record, particularly between 1971-87 when MPs were beaten up and even a Colonel entered the House to insult the opposition, with no action ever taken against him.

Michael Farrugia (MLP) said Mr Galea had a short memory and recalled incidents in the House caused by Nationalist MPs. He also said, to interruptions, that bombs used to be laid outside people's homes when Labour was in office. Dr Farrugia said it would be interesting to see how MPs who had sworn to be faithful to Parliament would vote on the current motion. It was easy to be arrogant and say one could do what one wanted because of a five-seat majority, but that was not what democracy was about.

Silvio Parnis (MLP) said that what the people wanted was not debates where MPs insulted one another, but collective action by MPs to improve the people's lot.

Parliament deserved to be respected by all MPs, and it was wrong for anyone to make comments implying he could do what he liked by virtue of a five-seat majority.

Roderick Galdes (MLP) said Parliament had been turned into a parody as the government took decisions without debate, notably the decisions on the golf course and the extension of development zones.

Joe Debono Grech (MLP) criticised Dr Gatt for selling off government companies instead of making them efficient, and hit out at the minister for the way he replied to Parliamentary questions.

Clyde Puli (PN) said this debate was a cheap attempt by the opposition to win votes, but it would only serve to further undermine Parliament and democracy, which depended on the essential element of confidence. He said the government had done a lot to improve the workings of Parliament, including the setting up of House committees and the creation of the Offices of the Ombudsman and the Auditor General, which fell under the aegis of the House and monitored the government's actions.

Joe Brincat (MLP) said the size of the government's majority was the fruit of gerrymandered electoral boundaries. Respect for democracy was gauged by respect for the minority. To carry on regardless on the basis of one's majority smacked of fascism.

Dr Brincat said rubber stamping did not apply just to the House but also to the way legislation was being written. What the government was repeatedly moving was enabling laws, giving ministers a free hand to do practically what they liked.

Anglu Farrugia (MLP) said Dr Gatt acted as if the Labour opposition did not exist, but the norms of democracy should not depend on Dr Gatt's feelings. The opposition was driven to its motion by the fact that nobody had moved to correct this arrogant attitude.

Jason Azzopardi (PN) said this was a motion based on a false pretext because it accused Minister Austin Gatt of saying things which he had actually not uttered. This was arrogance. Was this motion an attempt to distract public attention from the MLP's failings, such as its lack of position on pension reform or the euro? Was the MLP trying to hide the fact that its actions would lead to Gozo being divided as an electoral district?

Anton Refalo (MLP) spoke about the situation in Gozo and criticised Dr Gatt for having walked out of a meeting with the Gozo Tourism Association. He also hit out at the way Gozo Channel is being run and how Fort Chambray was sold, without Gozo having benefited from it.

Karl Chircop (MLP) said recently-issued figures by the NSO showed an increase in the number of people seeking a job and a decline in the employment rate, particularly with regard to women. Clearly, he said, there was nothing about which the government could be arrogant. Malta's competitiveness ranking was continuing to deteriorate while taxation was continuing to rise. Eurostat figures also placed Malta at the bottom of new industrial orders.

Noel Farrugia (MLP) said it would have been simpler had Dr Gatt admitted he had made a mistake and apologised. He said the people were feeling let down by the government, which was not keeping its promises.

Education Minister Louis Galea said that in 30 years as an MP he had never experienced an opposition that was struggling so much to justify a no-confidence motion. This was a motion built on a lie and might qualify as misleading the House because its claims of what Dr Gatt had said were not true.

Carmelo Abela (MLP) said this debate should lead all to reflect on their roles in the House. It was up to MPs to ensure that Parliament was, in the people's minds, really the highest institution in the land. It was for this reason that Dr Gatt's remarks had to be condemned.

Foreign Minister Michael Frendo said this motion had nothing to do with Parliament. It was only part of the MLP's strategy to target ministers who were producing results, and Dr Gatt was producing substantial results in the ICT sector. The MLP could hardly speak of democracy when in 1981 it took the reins of government without having a majority of the popular vote.

Tourism Minister Francis Zammit Dimech said that the fact that the motion was based on comments which Dr Gatt had not actually made was a sorry reflection on the opposition.

David Agius (PN) said it was very telling that the House was holding a ten-hour debate on just ten words uttered by Dr Gatt. The time could have been used to discuss more important topics such as Smart City, illegal immigration, the introduction of the euro and pension reform. This was a waste of time.

Josè Herrera (MLP) said nobody could call frivolous any matter pertaining to the sovereignty of Parliament, more so when repeated polls were showing declining confidence in national institutions, including Parliament. Dr Herrera expressed support for Mr Speaker's repeated calls for Parliament to become autonomous of the civil service.

Gavin Gulia (MLP) said that in the Maltacom deal the government had put the cart before the horse. Dr Gatt had refused to reply to a parliamentary question he had put, arguing that Maltacom was now private. And then he was saying that properties had not been transferred yet and were awaiting Parliamentary approval. What was stopping the government from moving the resolutions in the House?

Justyne Caruana (MLP) said the defence of democracy could never be termed a waste of time. It would seem that some government MPs had forgotten their oath of allegiance to Parliament. Anyone with the national interests at heart should not allow the country's institutions to be trampled upon.

Joseph Abela (MLP) said both sides of the House had taken pains to build up the country through their efforts for democracy, and both should have learnt enough not to repeat their past mistakes. Democracy was not a licence to dictate on the strength of a majority of seats in Parliament; it was also a matter of respecting the minority.

Evarist Bartolo (MLP) said it was the duty of any serious Parliament to question and monitor the government. It would have been much better if this debate had been about ways of strengthening Parliament, rather than discussing the need for respect for the institution.

Helena Dalli (MLP) said the report commissioned by the PN following the EU Parliament elections had found that the government needed to go to new lengths to show that it was on the side of the people, who equated the government with squandering of funds, strange decisions, nepotism and other shortcomings. Even if the government was achieving roaring successes in all sectors its front-benchers should still be humble, rather than arrogant and big-headed. The very public arguments with the Ombudsman for his findings on promotions in the Armed Forces two years ago showed that the government considered itself untouchable.

Because it put political expediency at the forefront the government was now advocating majority voting on deliberations by the MCESD. This could win the government some points, but it would destroy all that the council had been set up for.

Tonio Borg (PN) said that never had so much ado been made on an incident which did not take place. Dr Mangion had claimed four times in his motion that Dr Gatt had broken the law, but in his speech pointedly did not say so.

Much had been said by the opposition on improving the way Parliament operated, yet three summers ago the government had proposed new standing orders which made for more accountability, including Prime Minister's Question Time and regular debates on motions by the opposition. Yet the opposition's reply was a perfect silence.

Under Labour before 1987 opposition motions of no confidence were never allowed by the government, and Question Time was very rarely taken. So much for accountability.

Chris Cardona (MLP) said the government could not bypass Parliament simply because it had the majority. The opposition had a duty to pass on a message that nobody could ride roughshod over the highest democratic institution.

Taking decisions without reference to the institutions made this a Taliban government whose arrogance was evident not only in Parliament, but even in the way it was treating civil society. The opposition was not interested in carrying out a witch-hunt but in restoring Parliament's dignity.

Joe M. Sammut (MLP) said the government's attitude to Parliament was being mirrored in the law courts, where cases were being transferred to tribunals headed by part-time chairmen who could have conflicts of interest. In this way justice was being undermined.

He also hit out at the government for not keeping its promises, such as on hunting. The government was repecting no-one's rights, Dr Sammut said.

John Dalli (PN) said this long debate was only due to the fact that Austin Gatt had discovered that 35 (the number of government MPs) was bigger than 30. He had discovered that he could count on those 35 votes and had therefore made a commitment to the Maltacom buyers, subject to Parliamentary approval. So where was the disrespect for Parliament? So why all the fuss? Respect for Parliament also meant not wasting its time, talking sense, being truthful, checking facts and not smearing people. Perhaps speeches should henceforth be limited to five minutes. Many of the speakers in this debate had spoken on everything under the sun and not the subject of the motion. Was this serious? What the people wanted was MPs who could discuss ways for the country to overcome its challenges, such as the possible impact of birdflu or rising oil prices, rather than waste their time taking swipes at one another.

Joe Mizzi (MLP) said Dr Gatt's remarks were a serious threat to democracy and far from being an incident which had never happened.

A lot could be said about the shortcomings in the proposed new standing orders. If the government wanted change, why had it not accepted to have proceedings of House committees broadcast? The issue was not about having 35 or 30 votes but the threat to Parliamentary democracy, including the wider issue of how the government was not giving information to the House, even when asked to do so. During the debates suggestions by the opposition were being ignored. The work in the committees was not being taken seriously, with MPs often dozing off during sittings.

The Presidency of the House had also been partisan and had sided with the government when problems arose.

All this, he continued, amounted to a grave threat to democracy. Nonetheless, the comments made by the minister were unprecedented in their potential to undermine Parliament.

Referring to a remark during the debate by Jason Azzopardi, who said that had this motion been before the courts, the opposition would have lost the case, Mr Mizzi said that would have been no surprise, the courts being a Nationalist hotbed.

Turning to the Maltacom deal, Mr Mizzi said that when Labour privatised Maltacom there was a debate in Parliament. Had Dr Gatt intended really discussing the current transfer of property in Parliament, this would have been evidenced in the list of resolutions filed for debate.

Speeches by the Prime Minister, Dr Gatt and Dr Sant are being reported separately.