Franco Debono tonight kept the country guessing on how he will vote tomorrow, but he reiterated in a speech in parliament his criticism of the government for failing to carry out institutional reform and for failing to hold its ministers to account.

Dr Debono said at the opening of his speech during the no confidence debate that he loved his party and had been loyal to his leader. His speech was being made with a heavy heart.

He said that while some MPs, such as Censu Galea, had condemned personal attacks made on blogs, the problem was that whoever was responsible had failed to take action to update the libel laws.

It was not condemnations he wanted, but rights to take legal action.

Dr Debono said it was right to speak about the economy, including jobs. But jobs were not everything. Justice and freedom were also important, hence the PN slogan Work, Justice and Freedom.

Therefore, the implication that one should shut his mouth because the government was creating jobs did not make sense.

One should give a realistic picture of the country.

THE POWER STATION

Dr Debono said he was not only speaking about justice and freedom, but also about other areas such as energy.

The biggest problem here was not just oil prices, but the government's failure to invest in energy generation over the years. The government decided to extend the power station but opted to use harmful heavy fuel oil. It was a shame that the government had not invested in a power station that worked on gas.

True there was a major economic crisis in the world, but this should not be used as an excuse for various government failures. The political process was in a state of inertia in Malta. The development of Europe had been forged not only through economic progress, but also through the political process.

Everyone wanted stability, but political development was fundamental for any society, as much as economic development. Powerful and effective political institutions, meritocracy and accountability were essential for economic growth.  Power had to rest with the people. The divine rights of kings were something of the past.

Dr Debono said it was bizarre how parliament needed to agree on the filming of a small part of this debate. Surely the people in present times should be seeing all parliamentary proceedings live. Why not? Did somebody have some purpose to use other media as he wished? It was ridiculous that in the digital age, parliament still made its voice heard on radio.

Were it not for him, the courts would also still be using cassette tapes. These things were symptomatic of the state of the institutions they represented.

He regretted how the minister had not even acted for electo-magnetic recording to be installed in all court halls.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

Dr Debono said he had called for separation of ministerial respoinsibilities of home affairs and justice because they did not go together and the courts had responsibilities which were vastly different from the executive.The separation of powers had to be clear.

There was need to review how the Justice Minister acted, how judges were nominated and how justice was administered.

His proposals were contained in the private members' motion he had presented. These included a revisiting of the role of the Attorney General who seemed to be a bit of everything everywhere, acting as counsel to the government but also having quasi-judicial powers.

He was also calling for reforms on wire tapping because it should not be ministers who authorised such tapping, but an inquiring magistrate who should be separate from magistrates who sat in judgement.

It was shameful, Dr Debono said, that the law courts system had been dismantled and replaced by a parallel system of tribunals and arbitration boards headed by part-time chairmen who stood in judgement and then also served as lawyers, with the obvious dangers to a society where everyone knew everybody else.

Indeed, the Constitutional Court had ruled that forced arbitration violated fundamental rights. As a result, many cases were now in limbo. Why had the state dragged its feet and had not amended the law?

Dr Debono said it was a disgrace that 20 years after the Pietru Pawl Busuttil case, he had to be the one to insist on legal assistance to persons under interrogation, and that only happened after two years of work.

He said the situation in prison - such as the recent drug trafficking trial -  was shameful, because of the government's failures. How did ministers get away with such things instead of shouldering responsibility?

MINISTERS AND PEOPLE ON DIFFERENT PLANETS

Dr Debono said he had a right to speak as a backbencher, a right given to him by the people, but ministers had a duty to act on the proposals that were made to them. And backbenchers did not deserve to be insulted for doing their work.

People had elected him to act in parliament. He had spoken but had not been heard, and then people criticised his methods when he took action.

"People elected me to speak and to be heard...I do my duty in Parliament," Dr Debono said.

He said the Cabinet was prospering in a world of its own while the backbench and the people were treated like they lived on a different planet where their complaints were ignored.

Ministers, he said should be held accountable, not backbenchers. It was parliament that was elected for five years, not the government. The government only lasted for as long as the prime minister enjoyed the support of the majority of the House. To do so he had to lead a team.

Loyalty was important, but when a prime minister acted like he could roll over everybody else, he would be inviting trouble.

As a father, the Prime Minsiter had not only to run the country, but also to administer his group. A father solved the problems between his children, rather than creating them. The politics of spite were dangerous.

The Prime Minister should not reward those who failed, while criticising those who spoke up. That those who made mistakes got elevated and those who did their duty were criticised was unacceptable.

People who advised the prime minister and treated MPs as a 'bicca deputat' were making serious mistakes because MPs were not toys. MPs were representatives of the people, and the people were not toys either.

Members of the Cabinet who failed in their duties had to shoulder their responsibilities.

Dr Debono said he had been voicing his disagreements about policies and actions for years, quietly at first. His differences were about fundamental issues of democracy. No one had disagreed with him but the government had not acted.

UNREGULATED POLITICAL PARTIES

It was regrettable that in Malta, political parties remained the most unregulated organisations at law.

The electoral laws needed to be reformed, he said.

The manner of nomination of the President also needed to be revisited.

The law on the Broadcasting Authority should also be updated, and he no longer saw the need for political party stations.

HONORARIA GIVEN BEHIND PARLIAMENT'S BACK

Dr Debono said the worse thing about the honoraria issue was that ministers started being given their honoraria as MPs behind parliament's back and without the knowledge of MPs. So much for the dignity of parliament. So much for the much vaunted team spirit.

He reiterated his call for a revision of the libel laws, particularly where they involved the internet.

But the core of everything, he said, was accountability. How could one reform the Constitution if no one was held to account?

The focus of Constitutional reform should be on ensuring that those who took decisions were held responsible for them. The people should not suffer mistaken decisions, while those who took them got away scot free.

Dr Debono said his arguments on public transport reform applied also to the power tariffs, which were among the highest in the world. The reason for the latter was not solely because of high oil prices. In Malta, matters were being managed by spin and no one was being made to shoulder responsibility. It was those who pointed out the shortcomings who were made to suffer.

The absence of a culture of resignation was serious. In his thesis, he had said that MPs should be reluctant to embarrass the government. But he had made that comment in the context of the UK culture of resignations, and it certainly did not apply when ministers themselves did their best to embarrass the government.

Under this government, no one had been made to resign, but in an obscene manner, he was being asked to resign, because he disagreed with this culture of failing to shoulder responsibility.

PARTY LOYALTY

Dr Debono said an MP's loyalty was first and foremost to the people. MPs also had to show loyalty to their party, but ministers should not use this to steam roll over the backbenches. MPs could not be quiet spectators, because parliament had a duty to monitor the government. Malta, after all, was a parliamentary democracy and it could not have an oligarchy which grabbed power and held the prime minister hostage.

Unfortunately, the PN was failing to tackle and solve the divisions among its MPs and candidates.

Much was spoken about teamwork, but everybody had to work as a team. He could not be alone, Dr Debono said.

He complained of false allegations made against him in the party by candidate Herman Schiavone which, he said, were simply unacceptable but which the PN had taken too long to address.

Dr Debono said he had shown team spirit for many years. He was not as old as Joe Debono Grech (cheers and jeers from MPs) but this episode was a reflection of the state of the PN. The PN had suffered one of its biggest defeats, in the MEPs election, because it was not tackling its problems.

Parties were there to draw up policies, not try to destroy people, he said.

Where was team spirit when backbenchers were not told about important legislation when it was proposed. 

Dr Debono said one of the most successful laws of this legislature was rent reform (moved by John Dalli) but there were many failures elsewhere.

He was greatly disappointed that the government had failed by not moving fundamental reforms not only in the constitutional and justice sectors, but areas such as the primary health care where a culture change was needed in order to ease the pressure on the emergency department at Mater Dei.

Public-private partnerships were now being forged, but why not earlier?

However for the future, no progress could be made if those who failed in the past were left in their places.

One could no longer cite job creation as a reason for not doing anything else.

A prime minister needed to be tough with those who had power, such as ministers. He should not tolerate a system of a parallel universe, with the ministers in one planet and the backbenchers and the people in the other. This undermined democracy.

Dr Debono reiterated his disagreement with the way the prime minister voted No in the vote on divorce in parliament, despite the Yes victory in the referendum.

It was absurd that the prime minister had said he would assure that parliament would approve the law, but he would vote no. That went against democracy. It was not up to the prime minister to decide how parliament should vote, but he should not have acted against the will of the people. The prime minister had a responsibility to shoulder here as well. That, alone, should have been a reason for his resignation.

Indeed, he was surprised how divorce was approved in Malta. Maybe it was a message from God that his name should not be used in vain.

Continuing, he said that the solution to the economic crisis included the political input. In Malta, this was no excuse for the government's failure to move the much needed institutional reforms.

Dr Debono referred to his statements to timesofmalta.com on January 6. He had insisted, before the reshuffle, that he was not holding the prime minister hostage, he said, but he had hoped that the prime minister was not being controlled by a clique. 

He said he was elected in a democracy. He thought in democratic terms. What was taking place was worrying. What should come first for the country was how ministers were held to account, not how an MP was made to shut up.

The right of divine kings was past, he reiterated. The prime minister had a right to choose his Cabinet but he as a backbencher had a right to disagree with some policies and actions. He had complained for a long time. What the government did in the employment sector was good, but that should not exclude other sectors, Dr Debono concluded.