The end result of the report by the specially-commissioned committee into the reasons for the PN defeat is not worth the time spent in its compilation or the illustrious names which subscribed to it.

No wonder that the theme for last Sunday’s conference urged the members to look ahead, because looking back with such an analysis will not help.

The analysis was reticent and diplomatic where it should have been clear in its conclusions. As a result of its skewed conclusions, one is led to believe that only Lawrence Gonzi (and maybe, just maybe, Austin Gatt) are responsible for the debacle.

The rest are all there, smiling behind Simon Busuttil, presumably having hidden their various responsibilities and omissions. As I said in a previous article, most have been left in their Cabinet role shadowing the areas they were responsible for in government.

It is incredible that the report expects us to believe that a 37,000 majority was just the result of Gonzi’s manner of leading or maybe also Gatt’s mistakes due to enthusiasm.

The report also insists a lot on the word ‘perception’; that the perception was engendered, that this or that mistakes had been committed, as if it was not a real mistake at all, but just a perception (you know, it’s all a question of not explaining well enough to the electorate).

As Dr Busuttil said last Sunday, it just cannot be that 37,000 were duped or bred on misleading perceptions. The people who switched (we are not talking about abstentions here, but of people switching from voting PN to voting PL) did not do so for the hell of it but because in their minds they had had enough of the PN mode of running the country.

So the conclusions of the report are unfair with the voters above all, for they gloss over the mistakes that were committed, treating them almost as accidental when they were fundamental mistakes which no party should ever allow itself to commit.

The conclusions are also unfair with those who did try their best to stop the rot and to carry out their duty as best as they could, although to be honest I cannot see anyone at ministerial level who has not been tarred with faults and mistakes, if not worse, ever since the election.

By appointing these people to the same areas where they were in government, Dr Busuttil is giving the strongest ‘perception’ to use that word again, that nothing has really changed and that, come the day, the same people can resume doing what they were doing before.

I hesitate to list for surely I will miss out somebody and surely I will start with those who are less responsible than others. But take the plunge I must. As far as I can see, the commission made no examination of the individual ministers and, seeing they were reappointed to their previous posts, they now seem untouchable. But the country went the way it did precisely because of the actions of these people. I offer my analysis knowing it may be unfair and incomplete but in my book ministerial responsibility should be shouldered even after the end of the term.

That is why I still cannot accept Austin Gatt’s silence on his actions and omissions as a minister. Ever since ending his term as a minister and as an MP, Dr Gatt seems to have retreated into private life as if whatever happened on his watch does not regard him any longer.

Whatever the report said about his character pales in contrast to what is clear in the eyes of all: his responsibility for energy in the light of the revelations in the ongoing court proceedings, coupled with the preceding questions about the way BWSC was chosen for the Delimara power station extension.

In a wider viewpoint, Gatt proved to be unable to really come to grips with matters at Enemalta and in the end he was relieved by Tonio Fenech. The same happened with Air Malta.

Then there was the Arriva debacle. Arriva was meant to be the cherry on the cake of the PN achievements and instead it proved to be the worst horror story that ever unfolded.

Nor has Dr Gatt, to my knowledge, ever uttered a word of regret or sorrow to the party or to his supporters. The last I remember him saying was that he is now a private citizen so the media should stop hounding him.

The report does say that Mepa was another principal cause of disappointment of many people with the PN government.

Robert Musumeci in one of his innumerable Facebook comments listed no less than 13 reasons why people exasperated with Mepa switched sides:

• Exaggerated tariffs;

• People were not given a reason why their neighbour got a permit and they did not;

• Permits that were not issued because the authority insisted on a rigid application of policies even though the application would have not damaged the environment;

• Applications that take months to be processed even though there was nothing against policies in them;

• Certain ventures could not be undertaken because there were no pertinent policies in this regard or the policies had not been updated;

• Applicants who needed to enlarge so as to prosper in their business but were not allowed by Mepa;

• People who did structural changes and now cannot get their changes sanctioned;

• People who have long been operating without a licence and who have now been asked to relocate;

• Exaggerated bank guarantees and fines imposed on people who did something without a permit;

• Fines introduced last November for those who committed an irregularity and which increase day after day;

• Exaggerated delays in giving a reply sometimes because it was claimed the government has not yet decided;

• Objections raised for every little thing;

• Refusals many times ‘cut and paste’ without any real reference to the application itself.

Was it so difficult to address these concerns? I remember three consecutive ministers handling this brief – George Pullicino, Lawrence Gonzi and Mario de Marco plus I do not know how many chairmen, boards et al. Yet Mepa kept moving on like the Titanic until it hit the iceberg.

Today, it is clear the new government has given a clear instruction to dust off the many files left collecting dust for years and to see whether they can be reactivated.

Gozo is a special case for the PN since it always enjoyed a strong majority there. This is the first time the PN found itself in a minority so the focus must be on Giovanna Debono and her method of governing. This is important because in her shadow Cabinet role she is clearly being positioned as the next Minister for Gozo if PN were to win the next election.

Should not there be a question or two raised about her methods given the many allegations that surfaced even before the election and the clearly-expressed disappointment and worse expressed by anybody in a position of authority when she was a minister?

Joe Cassar came in as Minister for Health, succeeding John Dalli when the latter was packed off to Brussels. For all the sparks and clashes they have had in the media and in Parliament, Dr Cassar is roughly in the same league as Godfrey Farrugia who today seems to have been shifted away by the Prime Minister who said not so many days ago that he is very disappointed at lack of improvement at Mater Dei.

Even today, in Parliament and outside it, Dr Cassar is very touchy about anything to do with his remit but I do not remember a clear reply to Dr Farrugia’s claims that the health budget is seriously in danger and that he found a huge collection of expired medicines.

George Pullicino did a good job in doing up parks and gardens (even though they invariably were opened in a half-finished state) but in his real remit, tackling the many environmental issues, he seems to have missed his mark, as witness the many revelations now surfacing about inadequate landfills and inadequate waste collection policies.

Tonio Fenech is still the cockiest of the bunch, as proved by his spirited article last Sunday. But he still has to live up to the many mistakes collected over the years, from accepting a ride on a private plane from people involved in a tender competition to accepting a gift.

And mainly he was supposed to be supervising the economy while it slid down to a 3.3 per cent deficit. And where was he when collective agreements were drawn up and signed when they continued to make the deficit worse? For him to be the one to take on the government about the Excessive Deficit Procedure is the richest bit of all.

Dolores Cristina is now out of it, but one cannot help but remember the EU funds fiasco for which her carefully selected Permanent Secretary was pilloried.

That leaves Chris Said, by my calculations, but he was for only a very short time in a ministerial role and was given various fire-fighting missions. His real test is now as party secretary general.

Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici was axed by Franco Debono and acts like he was a victim, which in a way he was. But even he was no great shakes as a minister though I grant he seems better as shadow Foreign Minister.

This move to a shadow Foreign Minister post was a good move by Dr Busuttil. He now has another opportunity or two to put in people to replace Chris Said and Mario de Marco. Having rushed to reappoint almost the entire Cabinet to the same posts they had, he should not rush to fill in the spaces.

And what about getting one or two of them to consider an MEP post, or is that infra-dig?

[email protected]