Mr Speaker Michael Frendo yesterday dismissed two cases of breach of privilege raised in a sitting of the Public Accounts Committee, saying they had not been raised during a plenary sitting of the House according to standing orders.

The two cases, on the publication of anonymous adverts in the media about what was happening in the committee, had been raised by Evarist Bartolo (PL) and Austin Gatt (PN) last January during one of a number of PAC sittings examining the contract awarded to Danish company BWSC for the extension of the Delimara power station.

Mr Bartolo had asked committee chairman Charles Mangion (PL) to draw the Speaker’s attention to anonymous adverts paid for by the Office of the Prime Minister with excerpts of what had been said in the committee. He had said the adverts had published excerpts that were selective and out of context and, therefore, constituted a breach of the Ordinance on Privileges and Powers of the House of Representatives.

He had said the adverts gave the impression that the committee’s sittings were futile because nothing wrong or irregular had been done in the awarding of the contract.

Immediately thereafter, Dr Gatt had raised a case of breach of privilege on an advert carried by l-orizzont with words that had not even been taken from official transcripts. He had said it was a total invention of the committee’s conclusions.

The Speaker said that besides drawing his attention to the two cases of breach of privilege raised, Dr Mangion had also written to him his personal opinion of what had happened, pointing out that any eventual ruling by the Speaker would be final and give the committee direction. Dr Mangion’s personal opinion had been that there had been no breach of privilege because the two adverts had been neither false nor perverse.

The Speaker quoted standing orders that laid down how cases of perceived breaches of privilege should be raised in the House. Whether the breach of privilege was seen to have occurred in the House or otherwise, any case had to be raised at a specific time in a plenary session of the House by the MP who felt his privileges had been breached, and not through some other MP.

Mr Speaker concluded that the two cases had not been raised according to established procedures, and could therefore, neither be considered nor accepted.