Opposition leader Simon Busuttil said this evening that the question which emerged from the Gaffarena scandal was:  Who did Mr Gaffarena pay to get what he wanted from the government, and how did he pay?

Speaking in Parliament, Dr Busuttil said he was sure that the truth would ultimately surface.

Dr Busutti was speaking during the debate on a bill to make Parliament autonomous. 

He said parliament had a central role to scrutinise the government, but the government was failing to publish contracts and agreements it entered into, so that they could be examined by the House. 

The government did not even allow its own MPs to be critical, and one had since resigned from the Labour group. Other MPs had been put on several government boards, with generous pay, effectively shutting them up.

When it felt it had no real scrutiny, the government felt free to act as it wished, even closing an eye to corruption. It was for this reason that the PN policy document on good governance said MPs should not hold other public office.

Indeed a survey on MaltaToday had shown that the people were concerned like never before about corruption.

The present government, Dr Busuttil said, was in a ‘crisis of corruption’.

The government had made Mr Gaffarena a millionaire overnight. The Auditor-General in his report last week had spoken of highly inappropriate  ‘collusive action’.

Such collusive action was shown in the way how Castille had given Mr Gaffarena generous payment and parcels of property worth €3.5 million in exchange for only half a property which Mr Gaffarena himself had offered and whose ownership the government did not need.  

Mr Gaffarena had told Castille what to acquire, what to pay him, and how. No proper records were kept.

But who did Mr Gaffarena pay for all this, and how? What did Mr Gaffarena give in return for what he was given?

He was sure, Dr Busuttil said, that the truth would surface.

It was a disgrace, he added, that although this case was revealed by The Sunday Times of Malta in May, the police only woke up last week and took some action.

But then, it was worth recalling that the sons of former commissioner Ray Zammit had been  working in the Economic Crimes Unit, which was supposed to investigate. And they were involved in a business with Gaffarena.

The auditor’s report read like a mafia novel

The auditor’s report read like a mafia novel, with Mr Gaffarena being in control of Castille and the police, telling them what to do. It was only in mafia circles that individuals had such control over state officials.

Alas, the Gaffarena case was not unique, but part of a pattern. The prime minister had said he would tackle governance head-on, but one only had to wonder what else had taken place.

The Gaffarena petrol station case was just one other case.

Dr Busutti said Mr Gaffarena had met him and the prime minister about it. He dismissed his requests but the present government issued him a permit, and now Enemalta would also give him an e-power facility – one gift after another.

Other scandals included the Café’ Premier and Australia Hall, about which no political responsibility was assumed.

The Ombudsman had also condemned Parliamentary Secretary Ian Borg for using 'devious methods' to get a building permit which was refused to others.

Intervening, Dr Borg said Dr Busuttil was misleading. He had not been given anything because of his position and the Commission Against Corruption had explained how he had not pressured anyone, nor had he been given anything he was not entitled for.

The report by the Office of the Ombudsman was not drawn up by the Ombudsman, but architect David Pace. It was a technical investigation of Mepa, not him. The Commission adopted it because it was not competent to review it. The permit could not be issued to the former applicants because they applied for half the property and did not meet requirements.

Replying, Dr Busuttil said he spoke on the basis of the facts and Dr Borg's explanation was not convincing. The Ombudsman had said that: others had applied for the same permit  and it was not granted, the permit was issued because of a 'grave mistake' by Mepa and Dr Borg had used 'devious methods'.

Then the Commission Against Corruption confirmed the Ombudsman report while saying it could not prove corruption to the extent demanded in criminal law.

This, Dr Busuttil said, was more than enough for Dr Borg to shoulder his political responsibility. Others had resigned from the House for much less.

Dr Borg, interjecting, said the former applicant applied for a permit for half the site and could not be granted a permit.  He (Dr Borg) never interfered in the Mepa process, he had not even applied under his own name. The commission did not have the authority to review the Ombudsman report and thus made it its own, although that was not the correct term.

Dr Busuttil said Dr Borg had not denied any of the facts he had listed. His advice to Dr Borg was that when he was in a hole, he should stop digging. The only question now was why Dr Michael Falzon resigned, and he did not. Why not?

Concluding, he said the people wanted an effective parliament so that the government could be scrutinised on behalf of the people.

TimesTalk will discuss whether the Gaffarena scandal has damaged Muscat's government. Tuesday TVM  9.55pm.