An Opposition motion for revision of a Speaker's ruling which found the Opposition leader in prima facie breach of privilege was defeated in a somewhat stormy parliamentary sitting today, with 35 government votes against, and 25 Opposition votes in favour.

During the debate, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat denied that the government had tried to gag the Opposition when he raised the privilege complaint. He said the leader of the Opposition had claimed that there was political interference in the police handling of the Dalli case. What he had done was to deny the claim and insist that Dr Busuttil should substantiate his allegation.

Replying, Dr Busuttil said he had actually substantiated his claim by listing a chain of events which any reasonable person would see to point to political interference.

Dr Muscat said the  Opposition was claiming that the present government was gagging the Opposition by raising a privilege complaint.  But in 1992 the then prime minister, Eddie Fenech Adami, had raised a privilege complaint over a statement which was actually made outside the House. Did Dr Beppe Fenech Adami feel the opposition was being gagged at the time?

Since when had raising a breach of privilege complaint amount to gagging anyone?

The PN was criticising the government for appointing Mr Dalli as a consultant. But it was the Opposition itself which congratulated Mr Dalli after the new police commissioner said there was no case against him.

Once Dr Busuttil was feeling so strongly about some matters, why had he not sued Mr Dalli for claiming that the former government put pressure for his arraignment?

Replying to comments made earlier by Nationalist MPs, Dr Muscat said that while the government was accused of attempting to implement a push back policy for immigration, the former government actually sent migrants back to Eritrea and some were then killed.

The present government was also criticised for appointing an envoy without a call for applications. But the Leader of the Opposition himself was appointed head of MIC (the government's information office about EU membership) without a call for applications.

The envoy (the Energy Minister's wife) was being paid as much as other ambassadors, and as much as Richard Cachia Caruana was paid, Dr Muscat said. Dr Busuttil himself used to be paid double pay scale one of the civil service as head of MIC, and remained a consultant at the Foreign Ministry for €15,000 for 40 hours a week.

The Opposition was undermining its credibility with its double standards.

There had been the case of the son of a very prominent person in the PN, whom he respected, who, while his father held an important post, served as consultant to a government entity. This person was not criticised in the past because the PL had respected his abilities.

But the current Leader of the Opposition needed to be careful that his colleagues and himself were not judged by his own yardstick, Dr Muscat said.

This opposition motion was a knee jerk reaction by the Leader of the Opposition, and the government would vote against it, Dr Muscat said.

BUSUTTIL: I SUBSTANTIATED MY COMMENTS

Dr Busuttil said that in his comments last week, he had not insulted anyone, and Dr Muscat had now gone down in history as being the first prime minster to raise a privilege complaint against an opposition leader.

Dr Busuttil insisted that, last week, he had substantiated his argument that there had been political interference in the police handling of the Dalli case. He had listed a chain of events which he would repeat.

The issue was not whether John Dalli was guilty or otherwise. That was up to a court to decide.

The issue was that a politically-appointed police commissioner had interfered in the course of justice. He was appointed by the prime minister, who was responsible for his actions.

Dr Muscat had long campaigned for political responsibility. Now he had to shoulder it.

Former Commissioner John Rizzo had said there was a case to arraign Mr Dalli and the Attorney General agreed with him. He also said there was no political interference by the former government.

But it was a fact that Mr Dalli could not be arraigned because he was abroad and had a medical certificate.

The new government removed Mr Rizzo and appointed Peter Paul Zammit, who was known to have close political ties with the Labour Party.

On the day when the police commissioner was appointed, The Times of Malta also reported that Mr Dalli had returned to Malta. Mr Dalli had since said that he returned six days earlier. As if Mr Rizzo, who knew he was being removed, could arraign Mr Dalli in those days.

It was also a fact, Dr Busuttil said, that the investigative team in the Dalli case was removed from that case by the new police commissioner.

It was a fact that the new Commissioner decided on his own and contrary to the views of the AG and the investigators that Mr Dalli should not be arraigned (government interruptions). The government was responsible since it appointed the commissioner. 

It was also a fact that a few days later, Dr Muscat appointed Mr Dalli as a government consultant.

This was a chain of events which led to the reasonable conclusion any person would reach: there was political interference for which the prime minister was responsible. The government should not insult the people's intelligence by arguing otherwise.

His appeal, Dr Busuttil said (amid government interruptions) was for politics built on principles and substance. This government had already lost its moral plot and its moral fibre.

MPs should vote in favour of the Opposition motion if they disagreed with immorality as displayed in this case and also in the way how a person who was blacklisted twice by the World Bank was appointed to speak for this government, for the way how a person was suspended over the Gozo Channel controversy, or over how a minister's wife was made a government envoy.

The prime minister should smell the coffee, Dr Busuttil said.

Earlier, Dr Busuttil said Privilege was there to protect MPs, but Dr Muscat was using it to gag the Opposition.

But he wanted to assure Dr Muscat that no one would gag the Opposition.

What Dr Muscat had done was act against the Opposition's freedom of  expression. The Opposition would fight to defend this right, if needed, in the Maltese courts and the European Court of Human Rights.

Quoting Voltaire to government MPs' boos, Dr Busuttil said the principle was: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I defend your rights to say it."

Dr Busuttil said he obviously remembered the time when he was appointed head of MIC. He also remembered how at the time, Dr Muscat could not be appointed to that post, as he was campaigning against EU membership.

But to compare his appointment at MIC with the appointment of a minister's wife as envoy showed that Dr Muscat did not understand the issue. A government could appoint persons to positions of trust, but it could not appoint a minister's wife in that way. She obviously had a right to work, but not in that position and in that manner. Dr Muscat spent a legislature criticising former ministers for taking a raise of €500 a week, and minister Mizzi had taken six times as much.

At the beginning of his speech Dr Busuttil said he wanted to express his solidarity with Teddie Pace, who was suspended and made the sacrificial lamb by Gozo Channel in the ferry controversy.

The opposition motion was defeated with 35 against and 25 in favour.

The Speaker, Anglu Farrugia, was not present for the sitting since he is in Azerbaijan leading a parliamentary delegation monitoring elections there.

Other speakers in the debate are being reported separately.