The House of Representatives this evening debated and defeated an Opposition motion challenging a decision by the Speaker not to accept a motion of censure against the prime minister’s chief of staff, Keith Schembri.
The censure motion, presented by Independent MP Marlene Farrugia, had subsequently been changed to censure the prime minister for his defence of Mr Schembri.
The Opposition in its motion said the Speaker’s decision meant the House could not censure the actions of people who were given political appointments. This breached the concept of the sovereignty of parliament and broke the precedent set when the House debated and voted on a motion of censure against the then permanent representative of Malta to the EU (Richard Cachia Caruana) in 2012.
"This constitutes two weights, two measures," Nationalist MP Francis Zammit Dimech said at the opening of the debate.
He said the Speaker had not specified on what authority he had taken his decision.
Mario de Marco (PN) said the Speaker's decision restricted the ability of the House to scrutinise the executive. This gagging of parliament, therefore, undermined democracy.
The Speaker's decision restricts the ability of the House to scrutinise the executive.- Mario de Marco
It was worth recalling that Owen Bonnici, now Minister of Justice had said in the Cachia Caruana debate that the debate was important because the (then) Opposition would not allow anyone to ignore or sideline Parliament.
The present Opposition agreed, but he had to wonder about the minister's metamorphosis.
People given political appointments were not members of the civil service subject to the disciplinary proceedings of the service, Dr de Marco said.
In view of the Prime Minister's declaration that he had full trust in Mr Schembri despite the Panama papers scandal, it was the duty of the House to scrutinise his actions and give its judgement. This was what accountability was all about.
Responsibility had to be borne not only by the politicians, but also those given positions of trust.
The then Nationalist government stood by this principle in 2012. At the time it did not argue that the motion against Mr Cachia Caruana was irregular. This was where the difference between the former government and the present one was.
Replying, Justice Minister Owen Bonnici said the Opposition attacked everyone and anything. The government, he said, was not gagging parliament. Opposition motions were quickly put on the agenda of the House. Two legislatures ago, five opposition motions against the Speaker were never put on the agenda.
The present debate followed in quick succession on a series of motions which stemmed from the Panama Papers and were also debated immediately.
JUSTICE MINISTER AGREES WITH SPEAKER'S RULING
Dr Bonnici said he fully agreed with the Speaker's ruling because it was clear, completely legal and in line with parliamentary procedure. It was worth recalling that in 2012, Tonio Borg, a former minister and constitutional expert, had said that a censure motion could not be moved against public officers but ministers.
The Speaker's ruling was clear, completely legal and in line with parliamentary procedure.- Owen Bonnici
Furthermore, the Richard Cachia Caruana and Keith Schembri cases were not the same as Mr Cachia Caruana occupied an ambassadorial post, which was mentioned in the Constitution. Mr Schembri occupied a position of trust.
Furthermore, the employment of a public officer should not depend on whoever commanded a majority in the House.
In this case, as the Speaker had explained, the motion of censure should not be made against the public officer, but against the politician who engaged him, because he was the one who could sack him.
Dr Bonnici said the Opposition should not undermine the institutions of the country. Its criticism was jarring badly with praise for Malta by bodies such as Moody's, Dr Bonnici said.
The minister said he wanted to salute Mr Schembri, who had chosen to serve the country, giving up his successful business activities. Mr Schembri had set up a trust to create distance between his assets and their ownership.
Dr Bonnici said he understood those who regretted what had happened, but Malta was achieving its success because of the talents of people such as Mr Schembri.
Shadow justice minister Jason Azzopardi said that what was sauce for the goose in 2012 is sauce for the gander in 2016. He quoted comments by various Labour MPs and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando in 2012 on how Mr Cachia Caruana as a public officer or a person with major political responsibility should be subject to censure. That argument applied equally well now.
Dr Azzopardi said the audit which Mr Schembri was reportedly being subjected to did not equate to an investigation and would not give judgement.
He referred to a newspaper article by Mr Schembri on Sunday. He said Mr Schembri had not explained how he had set up his trust for estate planning and yet why did tick the box on estate planning in his application.
The email exchanges showed he was to start receiving funds from commercial activity which heand minister Mizzi were to engage in. This, clearly, was taking the government's so-called pro-business stance too far.
Why did Mr Schembri and Dr Mizzi have a 'frenzy' to open a bank account and sought out at least nine banks? Where would the funds of at least €800,000 per year for those accounts have come from?
Why was there an insistence on anonymity if there was nothing to hide? Why hide behind nominee companies?
Even worse, despite suspicion of tax evasion and money laundering, no investigations were made in Malta.
People who would submit their tax returns next month should reflect on how others had done their best to hide their money abroad, as much as €800,000 per year, Dr Azzopardi said. The law, apparently, was not equal to all.
Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Abela said he thought Dr Azzopardi was about to speak about the PN's cedoli scheme, which had all the ingredients of what Dr Azzopardi said at the tail end of his speech.
He said the opposition was criticising the institutions. It was about time the Opposition respected the rules of democracy, even when it did not agree with them. As former Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said in the 2012 debate, the Opposition should not be destructive.
Mr Cachia Caruana spoke and acted on Malta's behalf. Mr Schembri does not.- Minister Carmelo Abela
Like Dr Bonnici, Mr Abela insisted that the roles of Mr Cachia Caruana and Mr Schembri were not the same. Mr Cachia Caruana spoke and acted on Malta's behalf. Mr Schembri did not.
Minister Jose Herrera said the Speaker's decision was completely legal and regular. Mr Cachia Caruana was considered to have had a constitutional role because he took an oath of loyalty to the constitution. That was different from the post of chief of staff. Furthermore, the 2012 motion stemmed from the way how Mr Cachia Caruana was seen to have acted behind parliament's back in the Partnership for Peace issue.
MPS DENIED OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION KEITH SCHEMBRI
Independent MP Marlene Farrugia said that she had participated in the debate against Mr Cachia Caruana, and she had expected the same treatment for Mr Schembri.
In moving her motion, she had wanted Parliament to appoint a committee to question Mr Schembri. But her motion had been declared inadmissible and she changed it to a censure motion against the prime minister.
The government MPs were showing they did not want Mr Schembri to be questioned. What was there to hide? What had become of the Labour promise of accountability and transparency?
"What we used to say was good is now seen as bad, and what was bad is not called good," Dr Farrugia said.- Marlene farrugia
"What we used to say was good is now seen as bad, and what was bad is now called good," Dr Farrugia said.
"When will the government stop deceiving the people? As MPs we should not have been stopped from questioning Mr Schembri. We should have been given replies directly from him," she said, insisting that action should be taken against Mr Schembri so that the Labour Party could continue to govern without shadows cast over it.
Tourism Minister Edward Zammit Lewis said no precedent was being broken because no exception was raised when the 2012 motion was moved. As Prof Ian Refalo had said in his advice to the Speaker, it was the prime minister and ministers who answered to parliament for the actions of their employees.
The debate was concluded by Dr Zammit Dimech who said that the constitution laid down a procedure how an ambassador could be removed. There was no such procedure for a chief of staff. Therefore what could be done in parliament against an ambassador could be done even more against a chief of staff since there was no declared procedure for his removal.
Under the PN government, Mr Cachia Caruana was questioned by MPs for six hours, in stark contrast to the present government, which lacked the courage to do the same. This was a government which moved a Bill on standards in public life two years ago, and shelved it. That Bill said that holders of positions of trust should be subject to scrutiny, but this government was not respecting the spirit of its own proposed law.
This was a choice between transparency and secrecy. Shouldn't MPs have the opportunity to question the holder of the most important position of trust in the country?
The motion was defeated with 35 against and 30 in favour.