Transport Minister Austin Gatt had offered to step down over the unpopular bus reform last month, three days before he said he was “baffled” as to why he should be blamed for the poor service when he was heckled by a student.
Meanwhile, during a Nationalist Party executive meeting on Monday night, Dr Gatt argued that the bus reform had been approved by Cabinet, so he could not be held singularly responsible for any shortcomings.
Dr Gatt has refused to expand upon this apparent contradiction in his stand, saying he had nothing to add to what the Prime Minister has already said on the matter.
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said yesterday he refused Dr Gatt’s resignation during a Cabinet meeting on October 3, pointing out that this was before Nationalist MP Franco Debono had declared his position.
Dr Debono last month threatened to abstain in the vote on the Labour Party’s motion of no confidence in Dr Gatt if the minister did not assume political responsibility. Parliament votes on the motion on Friday.
On Dr Debono’s request, the PN executive met for almost five hours on Monday, where he stood his ground but accepted to consider proposing an amendment to sweeten the motion.
After the meeting, Dr Gonzi said the entire Cabinet assumed political responsibility for the transport reform because it was an electoral promise.
Asked how this responsibility would be shouldered, Dr Gonzi replied that the routes introduced in July were approved by Cabinet “and not only by Minister Gatt”.
“Minister Gatt has assumed political responsibility and so does Cabinet. I have informed the party executive in last week’s session that Minister Gatt had offered his resignation during a Cabinet session held before the Hon. Debono had declared his position and that I had refused the offer,” he added.
“I believe that one cannot be clearer than this as far as the assumption of responsibility is concerned.”
Sources said that at Monday’s meeting, Dr Gatt produced minutes from a Cabinet meeting held in July 2009 when the public transport reform was decided upon.
He explained that Cabinet approved the changes after a detailed presentation of a 350-page memorandum, so one could not hold him singularly responsible for the complaints on the new service.
Dr Gatt yesterday refused to explain how he reconciled his offer of resignation with his argument that the Cabinet was collectively responsible for the reform.
During the meeting, Dr Debono was reportedly relieved to hear other people accepting that the system had many shortcomings, which had to be addressed. However, sources said, he stood by his position that the minister should shoulder his individual responsibility.
Some PN members tried to persuade Dr Debono to move an amendment to Labour’s motion, holding Dr Gatt to account but not demanding his resignation.
At the end of the meeting, Dr Debono did not show any signs of having changed his position.
When contacted yesterday, Dr Debono said he was “evaluating the possibility” of presenting an amendment, though he stressed that he remained non-committal.
If he is persuaded to move an amendment to the opposition motion, the PN could circumvent an embarrassing vote because the amendment would likely receive the backing of the whole parliamentary group, including Dr Gatt. The amendment would also supersede the opposition’s motion, which would therefore not be put to a vote.
PN sources said the amendment, as discussed, would acknowledge that the reform fell short on a number of issues, would stress the government’s commitment to improving it and would even tie the reform to Parliament to ensure more accountability, such as through the involvement of the Public Accounts Committee. The amendment could also include some form of admission from Dr Gatt, who would assume political responsibility.