Nationalist MP Franco Debono yesterday fired broadsides at Malta’s permanent representative to the EU Richard Cachia Caruana and suggested the carrying out of a psychological profile.

Some fundamental rights are a wish list because they are not enforceable

Speaking during the debate on the Collective Proceedings Bill, Dr Debono referred to the government’s plans a few years ago to build an underground extension of the St John’s Co-Cathedral museum. He described this project as madness which apparently came from Mr Cachia Caruana... and this led him to wonder whether a psychological profile needed to be carried out.

Later, Dr Debono said people were currently making psychological profiling about him, and thus it was only proper that society now analysed Mr Cachia Caruana.

In a speech, punctuated by a phone ringing in the background, Dr Debono also renewed his call for reforms in the appointment of the President and reforms in the justice system, home affairs, and the administration of Parliament.

The Nationalist MP said the “hysterical madness” said to have originated from Mr Cachia Caruana was an example of how the people could have filed a class action, as proposed by the Bill, to stop the digging of “a huge hole outside St John’s”.

The opposition also came in for some flack from Dr Debono for having walked out of the Select Committee for Democratic Change, thus stopping the talks on Constitutional reform. The opposition should reconsider returning. If it did not return to the committee talks, discussions could be continued in some other forum.

On a point of order, Labour MP Carmelo Abela said the opposition had walked out of the Select Committee after the government did not apologise to Labour MP Justyne Caruana when she was accused of having voted wrongly in the House.

Dr Debono said he himself had been critical of the way the committee functioned, particularly as it met behind closed doors. A new formula was needed for the talks on constitutional reforms to be continued.

Malta could not progress unless its democratic institutions were strengthened.

Other speakers at yesterday’s sitting were Francis Zammit Dimech (PN) and Labour MPs Owen Bonnici and Silvio Parnis.

Dr Bonnici called on the government to show the political will and address the matter where laws which were declared unconstitutional by the courts because they infringed fundamental rights were still enforceable because they were still on the statute book

He expressed concern that the government could even legislate to strengthen such nullified laws. He added that a parliamentary mechanism had to be set in place to tackle laws which found to be null and void not only on matters pertaining to fundamental rights but also to others.

Interjecting, Dr Debono said his committee had discussed the issue and the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University, Professor Kevin Aquilina, had suggested such a mechanism.

Continuing, Dr Bonnici also said that some of the laws declared in violation of the Constitution could be removed through a legal notice. He called on the government to publish such notices.

At the beginning of his speech, Dr Bonnici said some fundamental rights were only a wish list because they were not enforceable. He asked the Prime Minister to declare whether the set of rights on digital issues he was to propose about the ACTA were to be enforceable or not.

Citizens who took popular action in court to attack an unconstitutional law found a number of obstacles during legal proceedings. He also referred to the constitutional amendment inserting “the golden budgetary rule” and asked whether an ordinary law which infringed the golden rule could be attacked through popular action in court.

Recent developments in court had brought to nothing citizens’ rights to nullify unconstitutional laws through popular action. Dr Bonnici said that there were various court sentences which ordered the nullification of administrative measures after class action had been taken. The courts did what legislators had failed to do.

He also dwelt in depth on the difference between “collective action” and “diffused interest”. A group of people taking action through a diffused interest did so when they did not have any vested interest in the matter.

Dr Bonnici concluded that the Bill was a step forward but it was limited.