The Opposition motion calling for the cancellation of the agreement with Steward Healthcare failed to pass through Parliament, as the government instead filed amendments changing the gist of the motion, and voted for those amendments.

The government’s amendments, argued that this motion came at an insensitive time due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Among other things, it argued that Parliament making pronouncements could prejudice the administration of justice given the court case on the matter, and that the institutions must be left to do their job without pressure. The amendments read that the government must take any necessary decisions in the interest of the Maltese people.

There is absolutely no doubt that the deal that was originally signed with Vitals Global Healthcare was a bad one. That company had no knowledge of how to run a hospital, took the taxpayer’s funds, with very little to show in return. How anyone could defend that deal is beyond explanation, and such a deal should be the subject of far more investigations.

Steward Healthcare then came along and took over. Deputy Prime Minister Chris Fearne said in Parliament that "Steward Healthcare is the largest American company that provides healthcare in the USA and runs 35 hospitals." Thus this means that Steward Healthcare is a different kind of company altogether.

The Opposition is arguing a number of points. Firstly, it is arguing that Steward Healthcare has not done enough in terms of upholding its side of the bargain. Prime Minister Robert Abela however pointed out that they built Barts Medical School, submitted redevelopment plans to the Planning Authority for both St Luke’s Hospital and the Gozo General Hospital, brought in some ventilators to the country, and bought two new air ambulances, among other things. Whether this, in addition to the day-to-day operations is enough to justify the millions in taxpayer funds paid to the company is the subject of much debate, and will continue to be. After all, submitting plans for redevelopment and having carried them out are two very different things.

Secondly, The Opposition is arguing that an agreement was signed in 2019 tying any government from that day forward to pay the private operator the sum of €100 million to take back these hospitals, no matter what the reason is, "even if court declares the original 2015 agreement null."

The Prime Minister however, said that the government has a different interpretation. He said that after seeking legal advice, if the government decides to move in the direction to cancel the agreement, and it is the private entity’s fault, the government doesn’t need to pay €100 million.

He then went on to claim that the Opposition is acting as Steward’s advocate and that if the government eventually opts to move to cancelling the contract that Steward will use the Opposition’s interpretation to back its own.

One question however needs to be asked, why was such a clause included in the agreement to begin with?

It’s a shame that Konrad Mizzi wasn’t in Parliament on such an important debate surrounding one of his deals. The former Prime Minister, Joseph Muscat, under which both the VGH and Steward Deals were signed, also did not speak.

Steward Healthcare still has a lot to prove, and many still don’t believe that it is doing enough to justify the sum being paid to it. The Prime Minister did not exclude cancelling the contract, and said that he has three choices before him, to leave the agreement as is, cancel it or revise it. He said that value for money for the people will be the driving factor. It should be, and he should be more transparent than his predecessor about the dealings. In the meantime, there is also the ongoing court case which could end up forcing his hand.