Presenting the motion of no confidence in Minister for Roads and Urban Development Jesmond Mugliett, opposition leader Alfred Sant asked that notice be taken of the letter he sent to the Speaker of the House regarding the changing of the chairmanship of said House for this debate.

A deliberation took place, and the Speaker said that he cannot give up his seat, other than when there is an agreement between both parties. PM Lawrence Gonzi reaffirmed this point.

The motion was put forward with Dr Sant citing Minister Mugliett’s said corrupt conduct. The issue, said Dr Sant, was down to two ADT staff who were publicly found guilty of fraudulent action; these people, according to Dr Sant, were not fired, when legally they should have been.

One of the two was a canvasser for Mr Mugliett. A board of investigation ruled that they committed unlawful exaction, bribery and trading under influence, yet the employees felt that a precedent had been created, when in a similar case the accused was given a presidential pardon, and then re-employed.

The Minister handed in his resignation, a year on, to the PM, but the PM did not accept it. Mr Mugliett’s mistake, according to the leader of the Opposition, was that he lied to the nation by saying that keeping the two people on the pay-roll was a collective decision. The ADT Executive Chair however admitted that this was not true.

Dr Sant voiced his concern that this was not simply Minsiter Mugliett’s fault, but more so the government’s leader, whom he felt, chose not only to protect Mr Mugliett from his mistakes, but also those of the deceptive pair. “The reason behind this motion is the entire population’s anathema towards the corrupt attitude with which the country is being governed.”

Dr Sant mentioned several cases in which he said corruption had occurred, including the Presidential pardon given to Zeppi il-Hafi, the corruption of the judiciary some years back and Foreign Minister Michael Frendo giving out pirated disks. “This laissez-faire attitude has become the law of the land. Not even in Mussolini’s time was there such an intellectual degradence of the governing body.” Believing that accountability and transparency are the epitome of governance, he considered that ministers are not liable and are not holding their staff answerable. The only time, he felt that accountability came into play was in 2003 when John Dalli, then Finance Minister, was impeached. “This country deserves better,” said Dr Sant.

Minister Mugliett did not enter into a defence of his case, but rather clarified the points regarding the said case of corruption. The ADT, he explained, has always been vigilant, illustrating several developments that have been made so as to increase transparency and efficiency. “Maybe our fault is that we have not spoken much about these measures. Across the board we are being vigilant,” yet, he cautioned human temptations do exist.

The minister evidenced how after the driving instructors where taken to court, a clean sweep was conducted, and a whole new system implemented at ADT. The board of investigation also examined those working at the driving theory exam centre and an external audit was commissioned, which resulted in quite a few anomalies, which were subsequently investigated.

The two employees, Mr Mugliett went on, were kept on the payroll, as procedure dictates, until their case was heard by the courts. He denied that no pressure had been laid upon the ADT Chief Executive, and clarified that the ADT board’s decision was never questioned or retracted.

“These people where employed by ADT before I was a Minister, and what is more, it is warped thinking that ADT’s lawyer was a canvasser of mine.” Dr Sant, Mr Mugliett felt, was ignoring the explanation that was given by the board, as well as the Executive Chairman’s ruling on the case. “None of the facts where hidden.”

Disputing the ADT’s operation, Charles Buhagiar, Labour’s main spokesperson for public works, roads, public transport and construction, defended Minister Mugliett by reminding the House that the scenario had been inherited from Minister Censu Galea whom had shown his friends that irregularities had been found.

The motion, Mr Buhagiar said is about the way in which the Minister reacted. “In the presidential pardon case, the man was re-employed with the government at the Joint Office, his pay still coming out of the ADT’s funds, please note.” This clearly sends out a message to those who are corrupt, and those who do deal in fraud, that it’s absolutely fine to do it, not something to be utterly worried about, because you will still get employed, and furthermore receive a presidential pardon, the Labour MP highlighted.

Also speaking about the roads sector, he drew attention to the existent cost over-runs that are inexplicable. “It cannot be that it happens every time. True, you cannot precisely calculate, but not go 50 per cent awry.” Mr Buhagiar implored for the minister to investigate these discrepancies. The minister in turn said he had done this, yet Mr Buhagiar again pressed for investigation.

Justice and Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg meticulously went through the motion, presenting proof of the way in which he felt the opposition put words in Minister Mugliett’s mouth. A letter from the ADT Board, reaffirms Mr Mugliett’s previous statement, showing that the chairman and board were never told or influenced to do something in any case, he said. He also said a board letter to the PM evidences that the decision was discussed with the ADT Chairman and lawyer, and it was decided that ADT should go ahead with firing of the individuals, execution of the which would wait until their case in court had finished. “So yes it was collectively discussed, but not decided. What is more there is no proof that an argument was put against this decision. There is nothing that contradicts that the chair and lawyer were in favour.”

As for the second part of the motion, Minister Mugliett would have been an accomplice to corruption, had he done something to stop the case against the fraudulent two, Dr Borg piped. Mentioning several cases, he also shed light on the fact that in any of the corruption cases that have arisen, it was not because of telltale newspapers or the opposition, but due to find outs having been made up the government and its authorities, that action was taken. He gave further weight to this by commenting upon ‘labyrinths of corruption’ that were found in 1987.

Irately taking the floor, PM Gonzi, accused the opposition of an attack against those who did something to stop abuse. “It pains me to see that the opposition is turning everything topsy-turvy.”

“We, as MPs, have a responsibility to show utter respect towards the truth, to encourage not denigrate those that try to stop corruption, and to continue to establish and strengthen the processes through which corruption may be ousted.”

The motion, the PM said he strongly felt, confused people’s ideas, and was used to create sensationalism and contort the truth. “These people were found to be guilty. You are playing it as though Mr Mugliett is the fraudulent one, and are insinuating that we, we were the ones to bribe the judiciary.”

The PM defended the handling of John Dalli’s case, and pointed fingers at the opposition, saying the accusation was found to be a whole story and fable they invented. “There are people in this country who tell lies.” He also categorically denied that the government is doing nothing against corruption. “We have always taken action. We have zero-tolerance against abuse.”

He demanded that the truth be respected and that whistle blowers not be condemned. “Let us not waste this debate and see that transparency and accountability are safeguarded together.”

Concluding the debate Dr Sant commented upon how he had awaited a calm analysis of the crisis this country is facing, instead finding the PM to be ‘hysterical.’ “I did not hear the sincerity that the country was waiting for, instead we heard the jargon of the advocacy.”

Regarding the AG giving immunity to those that expose corruption, mentioned by both Dr Borg, and Dr Gonzi, the MLP Leader reminded that the Attorney General is not subject to direction by the government, and thus the government can take no credit for his decisions. What is more he believed that the ‘precedent’ established was false, it being that two ADT employees did not fall within the purview of the Public Service Commission, whereas the person who was granted pardon did.

Dr Sant further still shed light upon an ETC tender that had been issued asking for driver training services, which, though asking that previous convictions be stated, had been granted to the same garage that was involved in this corruption case, but whose court case was still pending. “How then, can the government say that corruption is being fought, that there is zero- tolerance on the matter? This country is not being run well. This country is being run unfairly, incompetently and with no accountability or transparency. There is a need for change. If you do not implement it, we will and as soon as possible.”

The vote on the motion did not pass with 28 votes in favour and 34 against, a division having been called.

A motion for the 1st reading of the Consumer Affairs Amendment Bill was proposed by Minister for Competitiveness and Communications Censu Galea; which was passed unanimously. The Housing Decontrol Amendment Bill’s 3rd Reading, and that Amending the Port Workers’ Bill, that amending the Companies’ Act, as well as that amending Various Laws relating to Financial Services, were also passed unanimously. As for the Constitutional Amendment Bill’s 3rd Reading, there had to be 44 votes in favour so as to pass, and it did with 62 votes in favour.

The parliament adjourned for its summer recess, and will re-convene come September.