The Nationalist Party is drafting proposals to strengthen the role of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), its chairman Darren Carabott, who is also a PN MP, told The Malta Independent on Sunday. 

Introducing legal obligations for the committee to draft recommendations following its investigations, and removing the ability of members of Cabinet to sit on the committee are two changes the PN is considering putting forward, and which the party is open for consultation on, Carabott said.

The way the PAC system works is that it brings people forward to testify in public, he said. "I agree with this sentiment as ultimately people should face the music for what they had done while in public office.” He personally believes that the PAC can also act as a preventative measure, as sometimes politicians would fear wrongdoing “as they will end up before the PAC to face the music and have to answer questions which might put their political reputation, if not their legal position, in jeopardy. So with the system as is there are advantages, and I can never say that the PAC is useless”.

Asked whether the PAC is toothless, he disagrees. 

"There are certain people who, from a partisan point of view, don't want the PAC to work. The PAC is – and there was a report by the Auditor General on this – one of the most effective committees in Parliament because it is the only committee which the Opposition chairs." 

As chairman of the PAC in Malta, he said, he is also a member in the executive of the Commonwealth Association of Public Accounts Committees. "So I have the advantage that I can compare and contrast different scenarios in which the PAC can perform its obligations in different countries. I don't like comparing Malta with other countries which are not examples of a democracy. I like to compare the PAC in Malta with the PAC in the UK. If you had to look at the legal powers, the PAC in Malta does have the authority to take certain decisions. However, my criticism would be at what happens after the PAC."

Commenting on the legal aspects of the committee as they are now, he explained that every person who's giving testimony before the committee has to take an oath. "If you had to lie under oath, or if you wouldn't like to divulge information in questions being put to you, then there are repercussions. This legislature, in just 25 sessions, we've had an episode in which Karl Cini (of Nexia BT fame) was found guilty prima facie of breaching privilege by not answering questions. He's filed a constitutional court case arguing against the rulings of the Speaker."

He said that if one were to check the legal provisions, if someone does not provide information, does not provide correct information or lies under oath, they can even face imprisonment. 

He pointed out a criticism he has of the PAC system in Malta. "One of the differences between the Maltese system and the systems abroad is that abroad, there is a term in which a minister or government authority has to report back to the PAC, after the committee would have concluded investigations and set out its recommendations."

Currently, as things stand, when the PAC concludes hearing testimony on an Auditor General's report, a new investigation on another issue would just start, he said. But he believes it should work differently. After the Auditor General draws up a report providing its recommendations, and the PAC evaluates and investigates that, he believes the PAC should then be obliged to come up with another set of recommendations to be given to the minister or authority responsible, which would be in line with those made by the Auditor General, but from a political perspective.

"Then, there should be a term in which the minister or the responsible authority would have to report back on what it would have done to follow up on the PAC’s and Auditor General’s recommendations." 

Both the introduction of legal obligations for the PAC to draft reports with recommendations, and for the minister or authority responsible to report back to the committee after a period of time, are proposals the PN is considering putting forward, Carabott added.

Another criticism he has of the current system in Malta regards members of Cabinet sitting on the committee. 

"I'm saying this not in the current political terms, but rather I'm criticising the system. How can someone sitting on the Executive branch, investigate a colleague minister? How can someone who sat at the (same Cabinet) table, be there and investigate someone who is their colleague?" 

His issue is not with backbench MPs, but with ministers and parliamentary secretaries sitting on the PAC, he said. "My issue is with the Executive, not Legislative."

He said that during the first meeting he attended of the Commonwealth Association of Public Accounts Committees, he had a question in mind about this. "Funnily enough, it was only the representatives from Guyana and if I'm not mistaken Ghana, who have a system exactly like ours (...) To other countries in the Commonwealth, it was not understandable how we have ministers investigating ministers. They were ridiculing our system, saying 'how can you have the Executive checking on the Executive, it doesn't work that way'."

This is an issue the PN is also considering.

Another proposal the PN is considering making regards the need for a vote among committee members to be taken in order to call a witness. Carabott said that this legislature, government MPs wanted a vote of approval for every witness brought forward, “but this wasn’t the case in the past”.  He mentioned one example where this caused a problem, where the PN wanted to call Police Commissioner Angelo Gafa to testify before the PAC on the Electrogas issue, but the PL MPs forming part of the PAC were against, resulting in the Commissioner not being called to testify, he said. The reason the vote occurred followed from a ruling given by the Speaker, he said, "even if the Speaker warned members not to abuse from majority of votes." In spite of holding the chairmanship, the PN has three members on the PAC as against Labour’s four.

Asked if this is something the PN will be pushing for a change, he said yes. "This will be one of them. I mean, we're still drafting," he said. 

"I think everyone who follows the PAC knows that there needs to be a change in the system. I'm not saying it doesn't work. It works, but we need to make it better."

There are other proposals than the ones that have been mentioned that the PN is looking into, "as we're looking into other Commonwealth practices in PAC systems," he said. 

"The Opposition is being constructive on a system which was created by the PN itself," he said. "Unfortunately we haven't seen anything on Parliamentary Committees moving forward under the Labour administration."

Currently, the PAC is examining the Auditor General's report relating to the contracts awarded to ElectroGas Malta Ltd. by the Enemalta Corporation. The PAC Chairman revealed to this newsroom that the PAC "is soon approaching the conclusion of the investigation."

He said that when the PAC concludes its examination of the Auditor General's report relating to the contracts awarded to Electrogas, "the Opposition will for the first time put forward a report that will include a summary and put forward PAC recommendations." 

The report will be brought before the PAC, he said. "But can you imagine the four government representatives voting in favour of recommendations which say that the power station was not in line with the way it should have been? From their attitude, from the way they don't pose questions, the way they lack the enthusiasm to investigate what happened, they will certainly not vote."

"One could ask 'why would you draft such a report if you know the government members will most probably not vote in favour of it?' As ultimately it is our job as an Opposition to do it." The report, which will be drafted by the three opposition members on the PAC, he said, would be a sort of conclusion, including a summary of witnesses and facts brought forward and with their recommendations on what the next steps should be. "There is no obligation in Parliament's Standing Orders for us to do this, but we are going to do it as we believe there should be a follow up."

He was asked what he believes are five main points to come out of the hearings recently.

He mentioned recent testimony by former OPM Chief of Staff Keith Schembri, which started last Tuesday and is set to continue after the Easter recess. Carabott said: "In the first week of government in 2013, the then minister for energy approached the then OPM Chief of Staff and asked him how can he make money the same way the chief of staff did. That's what Schembri said, if we had to believe what he said. Keith Schembri said (Mizzi told him) 'all that you touch turns to gold'." Instead of having a person who was elected, given one of the biggest portfolios, focusing on his work, he approached the chief of staff to ask that question, Carabott said, highlighting that Schembri said he only got to know Konrad Mizzi four months prior. Carabott said that in his testimony Schembri said he referred Mizzi to Nexia BT. 

Secondly, Carabott said that the then minister for energy and health - Konrad Mizzi, then Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, and his then Chief of Staff Keith Schembri, as per the testimony, had close ties with Nexia BT.

As per Schembri's testimony, all three used Nexia as their auditors at some point.

Carabott said that Nexia BT had influence in the Electrogas evaluation committees, "which were the committees that gave their adjudication on which company should be the preferred bidder."

Thirdly, he said, there are "people who did what they did in public office, and are suddenly hit by amnesia when a fair question is put to them. It's ridiculous; you have to answer the legitimate questions that everyone has."

"Fourthly, the behaviour of the members of government shows that we have a Labour administration which is not trying to detach itself from the bad that it was associated with." He recalled how the former OPM Chief of Staff had resigned, how Konrad Mizzi was removed from the deputy leader post and later the parliamentary group, "and then you have four members of government being lawyers for those two more than the lawyers who accompanied Schembri and Mizzi themselves." 

Lastly, he said, there are people pointing fingers at each other when they were the ones responsible, giving the example of the Electrogas €40 million excise tax, which was reportedly revealed to have been absorbed by the government. Carabott said "we're paying for it from our taxes." He said that the former Finance Minister said he wasn't involved, "when the law puts the onus on him."

Asked if there was anything else that stuck out from Schembri's testimony, he mentioned, among other things, that Schembri "blurted out that Nexia BT were his personal auditors, but were also the auditors for Joseph Muscat. Unprovoked he mentioned that he and Muscat used the same auditing firm, and that it was obvious that Konrad Mizzi would go to Nexia BT."

"We had an admission that something is going on between these three."

Carabott, among other things, also pointed out that "when I asked him whether he recommended Nexia BT to Konrad Mizzi. At first he said no, and a few questions later he said, yes, he did."