A debate by the House Public Accounts Committee on the BWSC power station extension contract was yesterday put off sine die, with committee chairman Charles Mangion declaring that he would await a ruling on a point of order raised earlier in the evening by Leader of the House Tonio Borg.
Dr Borg had asked the Speaker to rule if the Public Accounts Committee could hold a discussion on the power station extension contract once this had already been discussed in two sittings by the whole House. The House, according to Standing Orders, may not discuss the same issue twice, he said, so could a committee of the House do so?
Labour MPs, particularly Dr Mangion, said the PAC was different from the plenary session in that the committee could summon and question witnesses. It was also in the public interest that this issue was discussed.
Opposition leader Joseph Muscat said the House had discussed the power station extension on the basis of a motion he had presented, before the Auditor General’s report on the contract was published. Furthermore, once it was the PAC which had asked the Auditor General to draw up his report, it was logical that it should be able to discuss it.
Earlier, Dr Frendo in a ruling said that the chairmen of permanent and Select Committees had the right to set the agenda for their meeting but it was the view of the Chair, that members of these committees, with the exception of the House Business Committee, also had the right to contest the agenda and request a vote, even though the Standing Orders of the House were silent on whether committee members could contest the agenda.
Dr Frendo gave his ruling following a request by Infrastructure Minister Austin Gatt in the wake of a stormy meeting of the Public Accounts Committee last Wednesday.
Dr Gatt had requested a vote after Dr Mangion proposed that the committee should discuss the power station extension contract. The request for the vote was turned down. The government MPs subsequently walked out, and Dr Gatt later also requested a ruling by the Speaker on whether the meeting could continue when there was no quorum.
The Speaker gave an account of events during last Wednesday’s PAC meeting. He said that the committee’s chairman had referred to the Auditor General’s report on the power station contract and had said that he wished that this report be scrutinise by the PAC members. The Chairman proposed a programme of work with not less than four meetings for discussion of this report.
Minister Gatt had objected and had said that the government side had already heard details of this item from that day’s news on ONE radio. He had therefore objected to this item from being included on the agenda.
Dr Mangion had replied that the chairman had the right to set the agenda according to the Standing Orders and that was the practice up to that point in time. He had also declared that the PAC meeting could not continue once there was no quorum and had only mentioned the list of persons who had to be present for the next meeting.
Dr Frendo added that the Chair did not interfere on how these committees were managed except that it had to see that the Standing Orders were followed. He quoted from Erskine May which said that order in the debate in committee had to be enforced by the chairman and no appeal to his decision could be made to the Speaker.
Dr Frendo said that committee chairmen had to keep Parliamentary practice in mind. It had always been the practice that committee chairmen draw up the agenda, even without any consultation because this was a matter of style. It was the chairman’s responsibility to see that the committee held its meetings. It was wise, however, for the Chairman to seek consensus on the agenda and also to include items proposed by the members.
It was the Chair’s view that, in its totality, the agenda was the competence of all the committee members and nothing precluded members from contesting any item on the agenda and consequently requesting a vote. This was a very delicate matter, added Dr Frendo, because the position of the parliamentary minority had to be valued.
He said that in this particular case, a vote had been requested and the chairman had to accede to this request. It was the Chair’s duty to appeal for common sense of all committee chairmen and members.
As to the quorum issue, the Speaker said that once this did not exist, the PAC Chairman only read out the list of witnesses who had to appear before the Committee and adjourned the meeting. Once again the Speaker appealed for common sense from all parties concerned.