Updated 5.05pm

A parliamentary committee debate on Konrad Mizzi's controversial consultancy contract with the Malta Tourism Authority will not be held after the Speaker ruled that such debate would not be in line with the Standing Orders. 

However, he pointed out that the Public Accounts Committee, which was set to debate the matter following a request by the Opposition, could instruct the National Audit Office to investigate the contract. Once this report would be in hand the PAC would be entitled to debate its findings. 

Speaker Anġlu Farrugia delivered this ruling at the start of Wednesday’s parliamentary sitting and shortly after the PAC had decided, through a vote, to wait for his ruling before forging ahead.

The €80,000 contract had been awarded to Dr Mizzi last December, less than two weeks after he resigned as tourism minister

It was revealed by Times of Malta and cancelled on Tourism Ministry orders within 24 hours. The Opposition, however, still demanded a debate within the Public Accounts Committee.

Government, Opposition clash in PAC

The decision to defer the debate was taken on the strength of a motion filed by government whip Glenn Bedingfield in the PAC, where government commands a majority.  

Notice of the motion was given at the beginning of the meeting when the committee was due to start hearing the testimony of MTA CEO Johan Buttigieg and Dr Mizzi.

Mr Bedingfield on Tuesday had called for a Speaker’s ruling on whether the debate should forge ahead amid doubts from the government side that it could be out of order, as no money had been paid under the contract.

In the absence of a ruling from the Speaker, the meeting started as scheduled on Wednesday afternoon but as soon as PAC chairman, PN MP Beppe Fenech Adami, was due to call the witnesses, Mr Bedingfield objected. 

Proceedings stalled for about an hour during which government and Opposition clashed on whether to wait for the ruling or forge ahead. 

While government MPs said they wanted “peace of mind” that the debate would not be in breach of parliamentary rules, Opposition MPs claimed the ruling was an attempt to block the debate meant to look at who had been responsible for the contract.  

Dr Fenech Adami pointed out that the agenda had been agreed with the government, and at no time had an objection been raised. 

“I have no request from the Speaker not for forge ahead with the meeting, and am comforted by the fact that the agenda had been agreed and set in advance,” he said.

“People have a right to know what happened. We cannot base ourselves only on what the Tourism Minister said about whether any money had already been paid,” he added. 

“It could be the case that Dr Mizzi decides to sue the government for damages,” Dr Fenech Adami said. 

Culture Minister Jose Herrera warned that there could be consequences if the committee started to hear the witnesses only for the Speaker to rule that the debate could not take place. Such a scenario would mean that the witnesses’ rights would have been prejudiced, Dr Herrera said.

Following a lengthy debate, Mr Bedingfield proposed to defer the debate, pending the Speaker’s ruling. The motion was approved by four votes to three. 

Opposition complains about government statement

Soon after the Speaker’s ruling, Opposition deputy leader David Agius filed a complaint in the wake of a government statement which denounced the Opposition for “disregarding” the ruling.

“How can the government issue such statement before the ruling in question had been delivered by the Speaker? Mr Agius asked.

Mr Bedingfield interjected saying the statement had been issued because of the Opposition’s stance to forge ahead with the debate without waiting for the ruling.

On his part, Dr Farrugia said he would look into the matter and pronounce himself at a later stage.