Government 'proving its commitment to clamp down on abuse'

Parliamentary Secretary Tonio Fenech told Parliament yesterday that the government's commitment to fight corruption was evidenced by the number of cases where officials had been arraigned in court and suspended pending investigation.

Yet the fact that such cases were being found out was being turned against the government by the opposition, leading one to wonder whether the Opposition really wanted accountability in the public service.

Mr Fenech was speaking yesterday during the debate on the Public Administration Bill.

He said that throughout the debate the speakers from the Opposition benches had repeatedly accused the government or its agencies of corruption or irregularities.

Since this was not a perfect world, it was inevitable that such cases took place, both in Malta and abroad.

The government, however, was showing it was determined to clamp down on and deter wrongdoing. This Bill was an example of such action, but it was part of a chain of other actions, which included wider powers for the courts and the setting up of mechanisms such as the Ombudsman.

In criticising the government when cases were discovered and acted upon, was the Opposition promoting a culture of omertà'?

This was the government that had decentralised power and promoted subsidiarity. Had the people forgotten how up to some time ago one needed a minister's signature to buy a colour television or even have a street lamp replaced?

Decision-making was now closer to the people and many sectors were overseen by regulatory agencies.

Earlier in the debate, Nationalist MP Mario Galea said the Bill provided for a better and more transparent public service. It also introduced the whistle-blowing concept, protecting employees who reported bad behaviour.

Mr Galea referred to Labour media reports about an elderly Zejtun woman who was recently accused in court of paying bribes for someone to be boarded out and said that although attempts were made to associate him with the case, because she used to open his office in years gone by, he had severed all contact with her in 1995.

Opposition finance spokesman Charles Mangion said the Bill was of interest to all taxpayers because they funded the public service. Taxpayers had a right to expect good service, not least because a quarter of all government revenue went to pay government employees.

Dr Mangion insisted on accountability in pubic administration, complaining that some people acted as if they owned the authorities they managed.

Despite the increase in funds pumped into the public service over the past few years, service had not improved in parallel and the people were not seeing value for money.

The financial services sector, which Malta rightly boasted about, had progressed because it was administered by professionally and technically trained people who were capable of providing an efficient, value for money service and the regulator answered questions clearly, in writing and in a relatively short time.

This was a public service sector where the element of efficiency and transparency helped it to flourish.

But one could not say that other sectors had been so efficient. Mepa, for example, was a constant source of complaint. And wouldn't medicine prices have gone down if the Consumers' Department was more efficient? Would the power surcharge have been lower if the Malta Resources Authority had acted in the interest of the people and also promoted renewable sources of energy?

What about accountability in the public sector? What accountability was there when time frames and budgets were not respected?

As for the latest MMA scandal on seafarer's licences, what had the internal auditors been doing for so long before the case was revealed?

Dr Mangion said the public also demanded discipline in government budgeting. Recurrent expenditure had already exceeded the projection for the whole year. What kind of efficiency was this?

Spending on medicines was projected to be Lm2.5 million but Lm4 million had already been spent. What needed to be done had to be done but if calculations had been wrong, who was responsible? How reliable was the information given by the government?

The government expected Lm73 million from EU grants, an average of Lm6 million a month. But only just over Lm2 million had been received, Dr Mangion observed.

Parliamentary Secretary Edwin Vassallo said this Bill signalled the most important reform of the public service.

The government's role had been changed to service provider and regulator. This new experience was in its infancy. It was a new method of how a government should work. The Bill was putting forward solid foundations through the values of responsibility, accountability and transparency.

Would the Opposition be voting for or against the Bill? It seemed it would be voting against. This would be a shame and a lost opportunity. There had never been a government that took such action, reflecting its commitment to democracy and against corruption. Did the Opposition, which was aspiring to be in government, not want legislation that would help it be transparent?

The Bill should have provided an opportunity for a common front against bureaucracy and corruption, but this was not to be the case.

The leader of the Opposition had criticised the government for lacking transparency and accountability.

Yet one of his former ministers, Lino Spiteri, in his recent book, had spoken on how Dr Sant, on his own, suddenly decided that Labour would remove VAT. Mr Spiteri had asked him how the funds would be replaced, and Dr Sant had said duties would be reintroduced, although that was not what the people were told before the elections.

Dr Sant had deceived the people, so how could he be believed when he spoke about the deficit and other issues?

It was a shame that the Opposition, which called the government corrupt, would be voting against a Bill which would enable action against people who harmed the public sector.

This was a Bill which was aimed at raising efficiency and accountability and attacking unnecessary bureaucracy. There would not be a change overnight but this would be the gospel which officials had to follow.

Its effectiveness, however, depended on the personalities of the persons administering the Bill.

That the Opposition was voicing itself against the Bill should not really be a surprise. It had also been against European Union membership, euro adoption, pensions reform, the port reform, the new Education Act, privatisation, the Mater Dei Hospital, SmartCity and so many other projects and initiatives which ultimately benefited Malta.

But before attacking the government on cost over-runs the Opposition needed to look up its own record.

Its sole project, the Bugibba and Qawra embellishment, due to have cost Lm1.5 million ended up costing Lm1 million more, Mr Vassallo said.

Mr Fenech, replying to points made by Dr Mangion said one of the purposes of this Bill was to improve public service efficiency and value for money.

The Opposition was saying that this Bill should have been postponed to after the election. It seemed this was a trend - the Opposition had also wanted to postpone pensions reform and euro adoption.

Mr Fenech said government spending on state entities was actually decreasing: Lm76 million in 2005 and Lm66 million were budgeted this year. Spending had been reduced after difficult decisions, but some spending could not be avoided, and there was a case for increases in some areas.

For example, the Ombudsman got Lm196,000, the Auditor General, Lm800,000; the Electoral Commission, Lm200,000; the Office of Statistics, Lm1.1 million, the ETC, Lm1,250,000; Occupational Health and Safety, Lm275,000; the Junior College, Lm2.3 million; MCAST, Lm4.3 million; the Univeristy, Lm11.3 million; the National Pool, Lm150,000; the National archives, Lm90,000; Heritage Malta, Lm1.6 million; the Malta Council for Culture and the Arts, Lm500,000; St James Cavalier, Lm170,000; the Standards Authority, Lm300,000; the Medicines Authority, Lm200,000; Mount Carmel Hospital, Lm6.4 million; Zammit Clapp Hospital, Lm1.5 million; the National Blood Transfusion Centre, Lm450,000; MIP, Lm240,000; the Data Protection Commissioner, Lm80,000; Malta Enterprise, Lm2.3 million; Malta Shipyards, Lm4.3 million; sewage management, Lm4.6 million; Mepa, Lm2.4 million; the ADT, Lm2 million; Sedqa, Lm891,000; the Equality Commission, Lm110,000; the Institute on Aging, Lm80,000.

The government was committed to fight excessive bureaucracy and inefficient administration, Mr Fenech said.

Other speakers will be reported tomorrow.