PN blocks debate on BWSC

Opposition spokesman on finance Charles Mangion yesterday again adjourned sine die a meeting of the House Public Accounts Committee following steadfast opposition by government MPs to the calling of witnesses for a debate about the Auditor General’s report on the power station extension contract, won by Danish company BWSC.

Mr Mangion later requested a ruling from the Speaker on whether the committee was empowered to call witnesses in such circumstances.

Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat, taking part in the committee meeting as a substitute to Evarist Bartolo, called the events at the PAC “a travesty of scrutiny”.

On the insistence of Dr Muscat, Dr Mangion asked every committee member to state their vote on each witness proposed to be called. The four government members – Minister Austin Gatt, Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi and MPs Robert Arrigo and Philip Mifsud – voted against each of the 11 witnesses while the three opposition members – Dr Mangion as chairman, Dr Muscat and Helena Dalli – voted in favour.

As soon as the sitting began, Dr Gatt said that on April 19, 2010, the Auditor General (AG) had presented a report after 11 months of investigation during which he had interviewed several people. Just a month later the House had debated the issue in plenary session.

Dr Gatt said he could not see the utility of calling witnesses, which would be tantamount to annulling or duplicating the work of the AG’s Office, which was a parliamentary institution. The PAC had freely decided that the investigation should be carried out by the AG.

Dr Mangion said he disagreed with this view completely. It had been unanimously agreed that the PAC could call witnesses, and such public scrutiny had never been intended as a slight. The plenary debate had consisted of speeches from both sides of the House, whereas the committee’s power to call witnesses gave it clout.

Speaker asked to rule on PAC’s authority in calling witnesses

Dr Muscat pointed out that his motion calling for the House to debate the BWSC contract had been presented before the AG had completed his report, and the House had debated his motion, not the AG’s report. Did Dr Gatt mean the PAC could not call public officials to testify?

Dr Gatt said it had been the PAC, not Parliament, that had given the AG his terms of reference. If the committee went ahead with calling witnesses, it would mean the AG’s delegation had been a waste of time.

Dr Dalli asked what difference Dr Gatt was identifying to what the PAC had done with the Voice of the Mediterranean issue, for example.

Dr Azzopardi said the findings in the case had been delegated to a high parliamentary official whose post was safeguarded by the Constitution. Such stultification of the AG’s work was tantamount to constitutional schizophrenia and would constitute a vote of no confidence.

Dr Dalli countered that, on the contrary, what the committee wanted to do was make a show of faith in the AG.

Dr Muscat recalled that many of the witnesses talked to by the AG had been evasive, non-collaborative and some had even failed to answer questions. Maybe they would answer them in front of the PAC. It was ironic that Dr Gatt, who himself had said he wanted to face the AG on some points, was now standing in the way of the PAC doing its work. This was unacceptable.

Dr Dalli said it was time to decide that any minister responsible for any sector being investigated should temporarily be exempted from sitting on the committee and answer its questions, rather than obstruct it.

Dr Gatt said he would have no difficulty answering any questions. But the PAC had no function to force reticent witnesses to speak up. This showed up a specific political agenda, not a genuine desire to find facts.

Dr Muscat said that at a time when Malta was being scrutinised by the EU on the spending of over €200 million of taxpayers’ funds, what Dr Gatt was trying to do was to bury the PAC as an effective organ.

Mr Arrigo said that the PAC might have made a mistake in delegating the AG to investigate. Maybe it was a case of the AG himself answering the PAC’s questions.

Dr Mangion said he would refer to the Speaker for a ruling on whether the PAC still had the authority to call witnesses.

Dr Gatt requested a vote on whether witnesses should be called. Dr Muscat said every member of the committee should be asked to vote openly on each witness proposed to be called.

After the negative vote on all 11 proposed witnesses, Dr Mangion said he was adjourning the committee sine die.

Dr Gatt proposed a motion, seconded by Dr Azzopardi, which basically laid out what he had been saying throughout the meeting. He was prepared to withdraw the motion if the committee decided to hear the AG.

Dr Muscat said what was happening was a travesty of scrutiny and amounted to a guillotine for the discussion not to be held. It was rendering the PAC impotent to do its work.

Dr Mangion said he had not excluded hearing the AG but would seek the Speaker’s ruling and act accordingly.

Dr Gatt said that in the circumstances he was not insisting on a vote on his motion.

A few minutes later, in the House, Dr Mangion raised a point of order and asked for the ruling. He said that the common practice that had developed over the past 15 years was now being undermined, effectively meaning that the calling of witnesses would be made the discretion of the government majority on the PAC. This went counter to standing orders establishing the PAC and its powers.

Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg agreed that the PAC had the power to call witnesses, but this power rested on the committee as a whole, with the chairman signing the letter of summons.

Dr Mangion said this denuding of the committee of its powers was unacceptable.

Acting Speaker Ċensu Galea said the ruling would be delivered at a later stage.