One of the issues which the Committee wanted to discuss was the report published by the National Audit Office on the extension of the Delimara power station, commonly known or referred to as the BWSC issue. BWSC is the company entrusted with this extension after the government changed the law which made it possible for this company to win this contract. After that, the person representing this Danish company stated that he has very good contacts in the political field. Different people and experts objected to the way this contract was awarded and against the technology which is going to be used, which will definitely be a health hazard.

The National Auditor was asked to investigate and published a report with his findings. Parliament debated the general situation and later the Leader of the Opposition presented a motion on this very important issue. However, the report itself was not debated in Parliament since the report was published after the presentation of the motion. Now, in accordance with the Standing Orders, the Committee for the scrutiny of the public funds wanted to debate in depth the report of the NAO and also summon witnesses. However, it seems that the government is very uncomfortable in debating this issue and, I would also say, embarrassed, since there was a walk out from the Committee from the members on the government side. The government requested a ruling from the Speaker of the House on a number of issues related to the procedure, with the intention of stopping this debate from taking place.

The Speaker of the House gave his ruling on Monday, 11 October 2010, and on this I would like to make some comments. In his ruling, the Speaker stated that the agenda can be contested and put to a vote. In the first sentence on this issue, the Speaker stated that the Standing Orders have no provision on this matter but he opted to express his opinion. So while the Speaker stated in the same ruling that the agenda can be set by the Chairman of the Committee, as is done with all the other standing committees which are chaired by Nationalist MPs, he also stated that the agenda belongs to all the other members. Besides, when giving a ruling, the Speaker has to refer to the Standing Orders or to the Erskine May if there is no provision in our rules and regulations. In this case he opted to give a ruling on his opinion. Of course I do respect the Speaker, even if for the second time I do not agree entirely with this particular ruling. I am saying ‘for the second time’ because he was also requested to rule some months ago precisely in the first week of his Speakership. On that occasion all the Opposition members walked out after a vote won by the minority was overturned. This also led to the undersigned to resign from Deputy Speaker of the House.

Going back to the ruling, this part of the ruling is very dangerous. This could mean that the Public Accounts Committee ceases from functioning or from functioning properly. The Standing Orders stipulate that just three members can request the Auditor General to investigate any matter or to raise an issue for debate. This was done on the British model to protect the minority and to make sure that the executive is adequately scrutinised and that the majority does not impose the agenda on the minority. With his ruling, the Speaker is overturning this key principle of The Overseers, Public Accounts Committees and Public Spending, as is described in the book by David G. McGee, which book, thanks to the Speaker himself, is now available from the Parliamentary Library. With his ruling the Speaker is allowing the majority to always impose their agenda or rather to object to every agenda proposed by the Chairman or by three members of the Committee. I hope that this ruling can somehow be revised, since this is an issue of huge importance. And that is why the Public Accounts Committee is at risk. The Public Accounts Committee is sending the SOS message and hopefully all of us concerned will get the message. This evening the agenda of the PAC is set to start the scrutiny of the Auditor’s report; let us hope that the government members do not shun away from this debate, thus preventing it from taking place.

Carmelo Abela MP

Labour main spokesperson for industry and foreign investment