The House of Representatives yesterday met in plenary committee to discuss a clause in the Motor Vehicles Registration and Licensing Bill and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill which deletes another clause saying that the estimates of Transport Malta would no longer be debated in Parliament but in the Public Accounts Committee.
Finance Minister Tonio Fenech said the authority's estimates would still be presented in Parliament but without debate in plenary session.
Opposition Whip Joe Mizzi said the amendment was now denying any MP the right to discuss the estimates of Transport Malta and to scrutinise its operation under any aspect. The PAC was limited in remit because it could only discuss specific cases or those raised by the Auditor General. Transport Malta now grouped together three former authorities, and debating it was therefore much more important. This was effectively muzzling not only opposition but also government MPs.
Many abuses within the Malta Maritime Authority had been brought to light in Parliament, and there had still been problems to press for meaningful scrutiny thereof. A person who had written to the Prime Minister about these abuses, such as precarious situations in yacht marinas that could also affect national security, had been victimised. So how could the national well-being be defended if not by discussion in the House?
Mr Mizzi tabled the correspondence with the Prime Minister to prove that the government was intent only on covering up shortcomings rather than investigating them.
The proposed amendment meant less opportunities for discussion of abuses and should therefore be scrapped.
He himself had uncovered many cases of abuse and corruption in the former Transport Authority, now part of Transport Malta, but the government kept defending people in high places even while having ostensibly asked for police investigation. The Prime Minister had felt constrained to act only because Mr Mizzi had brought the matter up in Parliament.
Finding his back to the wall, the minister had had to issue a statement to say that a PriceWaterhouseCooper's report had uncovered the abuses mentioned, but he was not publishing the report because it could prejudge investigations. Mr Mizzi said that in fact a previous PWC report two years ago had come to the same conclusions, but what had happened to it?
Mr Mizzi called on the government to cover the two-year-old PWC report now and tell the people why no steps had been taken about it.
The authority was now unjustly shooting at the wrong people who were not at fault. It had suspended three people knowing that two of them were not involved, while persons in much higher positions were responsible. The Prime Minister himself had said this was crass inefficiency.
How could the government now seek to justify the proposed amendment so that nobody could speak out? The money that had gone into private pockets was coming out of taxpayers' funds. If it really wanted to be credible, the government should have suspended the top people involved.
Anġlu Farrugia (PL) said he was surprised at the proposed amendment because to date, the authority could not spend any funds unless its estimates were approved by the full House, because those funds came out of taxpayers' money. If the minister continued to insist on undermining this principle of democracy, the opposition would call for a division and vote against because it would mean wiping out every MP's right to debate an authority that had repeatedly been proved to be wallowing in corruption.
The opposition was ready to go before the PAC, but only after the full House would have a right to scrutinise the authority's estimates.
Minister Fenech denied that the government was in any way undermining Parliament's right to scrutinise the estimates. There were already other authorities, such as the Malta Financial Services and the Malta Communications authorities, whose estimates were simply presented to the House.
If Parliament wanted to scrutinise the estimates it could do this more correctly, constructively and effectively in the PAC, which every MP could attend. The PAC was chaired by an opposition MP, it was the opposition that set the agenda and there were no limits on the committee's flexibility.
An authority's estimates were not the best platform for making comments about individuals, corrupt or otherwise. An MP could use his time on the adjournment rather than wait a year for the estimates to come up. The new arrangement would not affect democracy in any way.
Mr Mizzi said that if there were already other authorities whose estimates were simply presented to the House, it did not mean it was right to add to the list. It was well known that the PAC had a majority of government members who had even attacked the Auditor General for pointing out irregularities.
Abuses mentioned in the MMA still affected the estimates. Instead of giving Parliament more dignity, the government was reducing its powers. Unless the proposed amendment was dropped, the government would be sending the people the message that it was not really interested in fighting corruption.