Once there is an open chapter it is the opposition's job to see it closed, the new Chairman of Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC), PN MP Darren Carabott, said with regard to the committee’s hearings on Electrogas

Contacted by The Malta Independent, Carabott was asked what main topics he envisages being discussed first, aside from the Electrogas NAO report.

Right now, the priority is Electrogas, he said, highlighting that there was an open investigation with testimony being given last legislature. "The opposition’s opinion is that more testimony needs to be heard in order to close this chapter. Once there is an open chapter, it is the opposition's job to see it closed."

“There are other reports and every report by the Auditor General is drawn up as there is something of value. I think the PAC would be lacking if it does not look at other reports, but the Electrogas subject is so technical that it needs to take its time. It is not a report you can start and close in a month or two. I believe in efficiency, and I repeated this in the first PAC meeting. It must be an expedited and efficient process, as at the end of the day it is in nobody's interest that the Electrogas process is lengthened.”

He said that the process sees the PAC choose and give priority to particular subjects.

He said that the opposition cannot say what reports the Auditor General will publish. “As the PAC, we also have the right emerging from the law to make a formal request for the Auditor General to investigate and draw up a report on something that could be of the public interest on government spending, but obviously in the foreseeable future I cannot tell you that X, Y or Z will happen as we still need to see what will emerge in the future. Even in terms of NAO reports, I don't know what there could be in the future which might see us say that priority should be given. We need to move day by day and see what the most important subject for the country will be. That is why we decided that right now, the most important thing was the open, pending investigation into Electrogas and that it must close.”

Carabott said the opposition wants to make sure that everything that needs to emerge about the Electrogas contract, does.

Towards the end of the last legislature, the PAC was criticised as a number of sessions saw shouting matches and political barbs being fired within them, especially when former PL MP Konrad Mizzi was testifying during the Electrogas investigation. 

Asked how he intends to lead the PAC following such criticism, he made clear that he in no way wants to criticise the last committee. He said that everyone has their own style of chairing and asking questions. He stressed that "all three PN MPs who had sat on the committee last legislature were re-elected. The people saw them as MPs who did their job and they were again entrusted with being in Parliament.” 

The three PN MPs on the committee this legislature – Carabott as Chair, Graham Bencini and David Agius as members – are all new to the committee. "We have our own styles, like every other person."

Carabott said that there was a moment during the first PAC meeting when it looked as though political quarrels were going to erupt. “I drew attention that the PAC cannot be a place where political barbs are fired, or where the subject being discussed is turned into a political football. That can be done outside of the PAC sessions, but during the sessions the only scope of the Parliamentary committee is to ensure that government funds are being spent correctly. There is no room for partisanship during the meetings, no room for looking at blue or red, but rather it should be about right or wrong. There are other places where that can happen. The PAC should not be a place where the subject being discussed is politicised."

Asked whether this is how he intends to lead the PAC during the coming legislature, he said he hopes to do so, and also hopes that “all of the members of the committee are on board with my ideals and commitment.”

The PN, during the first PAC meeting, was against the idea of issuing an official timeframe for the PAC Electrogas investigation. Asked whether he could provide an idea as to how long the PAC would need to discuss Electrogas, a rough estimation, he said that it would be a mistake to put a timeline on a subject. “If in the future something of importance emerges from the testimony that will be given, I think we would be failing if we say that the time limit has expired and so there is no need to continue investigating.”

He said that they want to be efficient, "which is why we said in the first meeting that if there is the need, we could increase the number of days dedicated to PAC meetings so that witnesses testify more frequently. We also said that we don't want to hold back the government from bringing forward its own subjects, so we said that we are willing to have a subject discussed in parallel, meaning that while the Electrogas investigation is ongoing, the government would also have their subject being discussed.”

He said that the government committee members decided that they didn't agree as they want to focus on a particular subject, but he added that the offer remains. “If the government MPs would believe, in their opinion, that we are taking too long, they will always find our door open if they want to bring a subject of theirs to the table and add on sittings for it.”