Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House Tonio Borg warned yesterday that the government was determined to fulfil all electoral promises and carry out the necessary reforms to strengthen Parliament - with or without the opposition.

Winding up the debate on the government motion to appoint Nationalist MP Ċensu Galea as Deputy Speaker, Dr Borg said that the government would like to enact such measures in agreement with the opposition, which he augured would return to the select committee on the strengthening of democracy.

He belied opposition criticism that nothing had been done in the committee, stating that it was the government members who were the most active. He himself had drafted the Ombudsman Bill, currently on the House agenda, after agreement in the same committee. There were also proposals on party financing and on the strengthening of measures to combat corruption.

Introducing the motion, Dr Borg said Mr Galea had all the ideal qualities for the important post, which would see him deputise for an absent Speaker and chair plenary committees.

Mr Galea brought with him several years of experience as a Cabinet minister, whip and secretary to the Nationalist parliamentary group. His knowledge of parliamentary procedures and standing orders was an assurance of impartiality in the workings of the House. Opposition deputy leader Anġlu Farrugia spoke on the circumstances which led to the resignation of Mr Abela, saying that parliamentary democracy had been undermined. He said that during the voting after the power station debate, Parliamentary Secretary Mario Galea had voted "yes" for the opposition motion, but the Speaker had stopped the vote after the government claimed that Labour MP Justyne Caruana had voted "no", something which was not true and amounted to a political frame-up.

Dr Farrugia said that in the wake of the incident, the opposition had also decided to stay away from the meetings of the Standing Committee on Democratic Reform. How could the opposition discuss democratic reform when the government was undermining democracy, especially in the way parliamentary business was conducted?

Not only was the government playing about with standing orders - such as by restricting voting to Wednesdays at 1 p.m. - but MPs were not getting replies to their parliamentary questions, Dr Farrugia said.

More recently the Prime Minister had even said he was ready to stop parliamentary sittings when Cabinet ministers needed to go overseas on government work. But whatever the Prime Minister said, the government was edging ever closer to a parliamentary dictatorship.

Dr Farrugia said the government was not even eager to safeguard the people's interests in the face of corruption. The Prime Minister purported not to know what his closest aides were doing, such as when he claimed to have learned about possible corruption in the privatisation process of the Manoel Island Yacht Yard only eight months after it had happened.

It was only the opposition that was safeguarding the people's interests, through the right to demand information and scrutinise the government's actions, and even in this it was being hindered by the government. The opposition could have no confidence in such a government, which should be giving the first example.

He said that it was up to the government to remedy the current self-inflicted situation before things could go forward.

In view of these circumstances, he said, the opposition would vote against this motion.

Opposition whip Joe Mizzi said recent events in Parliament had not really been about winning or losing votes, or of time-wasting or of voting mistakes, but of serious abuse of democracy.

It was very telling that when government MPs had found their backs to a wall they had resorted to denigrating an opposition MP.

The government's arrogance had got to the stage where, towards the end of the last legislature, a Cabinet minister had boasted that the government could do whatever it wanted because it had a majority of five seats.

Faced with internal problems in the Nationalist parliamentary group at the time of the controversial St John's Co-Cathedral project, the Prime Minister had moved a procedural motion doing away with every MP's right to move a private motion of constituency or national interest. So much for democracy when the government had its back to a wall; a private member's Bill could be discussed only with the blessing of the Leader of the House. The government was not really keen on democracy, but invoked it only when it suited it.

Mr Mizzi said that under this government, strong shadows had fallen on the police, the courts, government entities, authorities and even Parliament itself.

He referred to his claims of corruption in the issuing of licences by the ADT, and said the police did not know where to start because of the spokes put into their wheels to shield a Nationalist diehard. He still hoped the big fish would be caught, rather than just the small fry, but he could not be sure if the information he had supplied on this person's further corruption had reached Police Headquarters.

Concluding, Mr Mizzi said that in spite of lack of official access, he still had access to information which he was ready to use in the national interests.

Former Deputy Speaker Carmelo Abela gave the sequence of events which had led him to resign from office, and thanked the Prime Minister for renewing his confidence in him during the debate on the procedural motion, on which he had spoken and voted against.

Mr Abela said that both at home and overseas, he had always kept the interests of Parliament at the forefront, despite the fact that he was coming from the opposition benches.

During the 14 years in Parliament - seven of which as Deputy Speaker - he had come to love the institution because he knew the benefits that the people could reap from it. Parliament did not belong to the government of the day but to all elected members, and therefore to the people. He was in agreement with previous Speakers on the importance of a Parliament which was autonomous and independent from the government of the day. But in the prevailing situation, this was a remote aspiration.

In the May 6 sitting the opposition had won the vote but this had been overturned. It was for this reason that he had felt he had no other way but to resign. He believed his values had been betrayed. His position had become untenable and he had the constitutional obligation to ascertain that democracy was not undermined.

Mr Abela said that his had not been the easiest of decisions because he believed his office could help in the changes which Parliament urgently needed.

He believed that if the government had apologised to Dr Caruana, it would have meant that it was interested in Parliament working better, and that there was goodwill that things normalise themselves. He appealed to the government to revoke the motion so that both sides could talk.

The government could not continue using Parliament for its own ends and ignore that the institution was not an extension of the government. The way Parliament functioned was still a far cry from the way to satify the exigencies of an EU member state.

Because of the added obligations with the coming in force of the Lisbon Treaty, there was an urgent need for Parliament to take stock of the situation.

Mr Abela revealed that together with former Speaker Louis Galea he had worked on a report on how Parliament could move forward. This was still an internal document.

He could understand that the government of the day benefited from a weak Parliament, but this was not in the national interests and not in conformity with the oath of allegiance taken by all MPs at the start of the legislature.

Winding up the debate, Dr Borg defended the government's record in Parliament. He said that Dr Farrugia had accused the government of undermining democracy, yet it was this governemnt which had nominated a President who just a few months before had contested the Labour Party leadership. This was the government which had set up the Committee for Democratic Change, the government which had set up the Public Accounts Committee headed by a Labour MP, and the government which had made it possible for the opposition to also nominate the Deputy Speaker.

Furthermore, it was this government which had enacted laws creating the Ombudsman. It had also amended the electoral laws for closer proportionality in the House with votes cast in the general election.

Referring to the conduct of parliamentary business, Dr Borg said the government could not be brought into a situation where ministers could not go abroad on government business.

The opposition, he said, had not cooperated. It had refused pairing and was now withdrawing from the Select Committee on Democratic Change.

Years ago the government had also proposed an updating of standing orders, including the Prime Minister's question time. The opposition had not even replied.

On the other hand, much could be said of the Labour government's record in Parliament, not least the fact that opposition private motions were not debated.

This government, the minister said, would keep its promises of further action to fight corruption and further strengthen democracy.

He also referred to mistakes during voting in the House, and said it was ridiculous that MPs could not immediately correct genuine mistakes. This was something which did not happen anywhere else in the world. When the motion was put to the vote, the opposition asked for a division which will be taken today.