Dr Mizzi said he used to be a manager responsible for IT at Enemalta and theft of electricity was not within his remit. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier

Minister Konrad Mizzi had made a bad choice of words when he said the former administration had thrown files into a box and, unless he could prove his allegations, could have conveyed his message without implying bad motive, the Speaker ruled yesterday.

Acting Speaker Ċensu Galea’s decision was taken over remarks made by Dr Mizzi on Tuesday, when he was answering questions over the unearthing of hundreds of files concerning electricity theft on which no action had been taken.

Referring to members of the Opposition, then in power, he said: “You put them in a box...they were thrown away by the administration”.

The Opposition raised a complaint, saying Dr Mizzi had implied personal responsibility for theft of electricity, and called on the Speaker to censure him.

In his ruling yesterday, Mr Galea said Standing Order 63, cited by the Opposition, did not apply as what had taken place did not fall within the parameters of dishonourable behaviour.

You put them in a box... they were thrown away by the administration

Standing Orders, however, also laid down that no member shall use offensive or unbecoming words against the character or proceedings of the House or in reference to any of its members. No bad motive shall be attributed to any member.

The ruling was the Speaker’s second in as many days, given after a 75-minute suspension of the sitting – also the second in two days.

He had on Tuesday asked the minister to clarify whether he had been referring to personal or political responsibility with his comment about the theft files having been hidden away in a box.

But Dr Mizzi yesterday said he stood by that remark, adding however that the Opposition was complaining about half a sentence uttered amid a crossfire and Opposition interruptions.

The minister went over what he said the day before, speaking, however, of political responsibility. He said the theft of electricity had taken place under the watch of the Nationalist government and its ministers knew that theft had taken place.

He said it was hypocritical of the Opposition to try to stop him from speaking when he was reporting to the House what had taken place in Enemalta under the former administration, including the theft of electricity and the oil procurement scandal. The minister said the comment complained of had to be seen in the whole context of his speech.

Mr Galea repeatedly asked Dr Mizzi if he was speaking about political or personal responsibility. The minister said he stood by his speeches.

Former minister Tonio Fenech said it was evident that the minister did not want to withdraw his words. But this had not been a simple crossfire.

It was one thing to know in general terms that there was theft of electricity taking place but it would have been different had one known of specific cases and not acted on them. What Dr Mizzi had said was that it was the former administration – the ministers – who had thrown the files into a box, and not some Enemalta official.

He noted that in court evidence given earlier in the day, the Enemalta internal auditor had said the tampered smart meters were discovered in July when a meter was returned to Enemalta after having been installed in Attard.

This contradicted what the minister had said about the tampered meters scandal having been discovered by the Fraud Unit.

July was under the watch of the current government, not the former government.

Was it true that some of the files on theft which the minister had spoken about yesterday went back to 2003? Was Dr Mizzi on the board of management of Enemalta at the time? Would he therefore also assume responsibility for what happened under his watch in that position?

Interjecting, Dr Mizzi said he was a manager responsible for IT and theft of electricity was not within his remit.

Opposition deputy leader Mario de Marco said that in the same way as the minister could accuse the former ministers of political, but not personal responsibility for theft of electricity, the Opposition could say that he had to shoulder managerial responsibility for the theft which took place while he was on the managerial committee of Enemalta.

Could he, as a former member of the management committee, say that Enemalta was ever given political direction not to act against theft under the former government?

Dr Mizzi said he had restated the facts: that there was theft of electricity under the former government about which no action had been taken. The comments the Opposition was complaining of were made in a crossfire during which many other things were said but not recorded.

Mr Fenech said the Opposition’s intention was not to request the suspension of Dr Mizzi but for the text to be corrected.

Dr Mizzi said the Opposition could do as it wished, but what he had said was in the context of what was said. He stood by what he said and did not care if he was “named” by the Speaker.

At 7.15 p.m. Mr Galea suspended the sitting to give the ruling.