Julian Delia reported live from Wednesday’s standards committee meeting concerning Clayton Bartolo and Clint Camilleri’s abuse of office
Standards committee votes for minimal consequences for Bartolo and Camilleri
12:04 | The standards committee meeting ends. Thank you for following!
11:57 | The government’s MPs continue to repeat what emerges as their dominant line of defence – that an apology should be issued but there should be no refunding of the money that was paid to Muscat in her non-existent role as consultant. They argue that Camilleri has committed to reforming protocols and that is enough.
The speaker of the house has the casting vote: Farrugia says that, notwithstanding Camilleri’s submission and its contents, Muscat must refund the money she was overpaid for her consultancy role (rather than a full refund for work she did not do). Camilleri is to be admonished in Parliament, but the speaker votes against demanding a full refund from Muscat. The opposition insists that Camilleri must also apologise in public, a recommendation that is also refused.
Clint Camilleri – to be admonished in Parliament, everything else refused.
Clayton Bartolo – the government’s MPs also vote in favour of the opposition’s request for Bartolo to apologise to Parliament.
As for the funds which are owed, the pay bump which was given to Muscat – which amounts to 16,407 euros according to the principal permanent secretary’s estimates – was paid back according to the submissions made to the committee.
The last sanction – suspension of Clayton Bartolo for 30 days. Government MPs vote against, and the Speaker of the House voices disagreement with the suspension since Bartolo resigned and a portion of the money that was owed was refunded. He votes against.
11:52 | The speaker of the house argues that Muscat did carry out work on behalf of Bartolo’s ministry, and the opposition rebuts that she was not being paid to do so – she was paid to work for the Gozo ministry, which she simply didn’t do.
11:50 | The government’s ministers on the committee insist that the motion proposed by the opposition does not adhere to the regulations which were established to sanction MPs in the context of ethical breaches.
Sanctions are now up for discussion – an official apology in the House of Representatives and a full refund of the consultancy payments which were issued to Muscat. The committee members are completely split on whether Muscat carried out any work or not. The opposition is insisting that all that money must be refunded, while the government’s MPs insist that this was not true. This is a deliberate spin on the facts which are evident from the standards commissioner’s report.
11:44 | Speaker of the House and committee chair Anglu Farrugia refers to procedure – to present a parliamentary motion, there must be three days’ notice from whoever wishes to present it.
“We have everything in hand and we’ve taken into consideration what was said by all parties. The committee must issue sanctions according to procedure. To present a motion like this, procedurally you need three days’ notice,” Farrugia remarks. Opposition MP Ryan Callus says that their priority is for the committee to discuss these sanctions.
11:41 | The room breaks out in cross-debate, with justice minister Jonathan Attard in particular lobbying accusations of political bickering at the opposition’s MPs. Parliamentary secretary for social dialogue Andy Ellul notes that the public is yet to see what the responses submitted by Bartolo and Camilleri were, and that the opposition’s MPs are trying to mislead by implying the Gozo minister refused to apologise to the public. Ellul quotes extensively from Camilleri’s submission and reiterates that the minister committed himself to revise the public service manual.
11:37 | The opposition insists that its four recommendations – which so far are bundled into one motion to be voted upon – can be debated and voted upon one by one, as per the standing orders of the standards committee. The Speaker of the House notes that after a report is endorsed by the committee and the subjects of the report are given time to submit their responses, the committee must decide on which sanctions must be imposed.
11:34 | Ryan Callus – the opposition now suggests that the points raised in their motion should be discussed one by one, and that there was no apology whatsoever in Camilleri’s submission.
“With all due respect, your intimidation and your protests are the reason why Camilleri could not apologise, it’s all because of this witch hunt,” Attard remarks heatedly. As per usual, the committee meeting threatens to quickly degenerate into a shouting match.
11:31 | Attard says that Camilleri’s submission does defer to the standards commissioner’s conclusions in this report and that he clearly stated that it was not the Gozo minister’s intention to breach these ethical standards.
“Let’s not discredit the minister’s submissions,” Attard says. It is not clear why Camilleri did not bother to show up in person to state his own version of events, though we can imagine that neither Camilleri nor Bartolo were too keen on facing the press’ burning questions about their actions. Bartolo was seen walking away from Parliament minutes before the meeting began.
11:28 | Jonathan Attard – the justice minister argues that the opposition’s motion to call for Clint Camilleri’s resignation should be addressed in Parliament, not in this committee (where conveniently, the government holds a majority). Attard further argues that the committee’s remit cannot be stretched as far as the opposition wishes to stretch it for “its own partisan ends”.
11:25 | He also refers to the case of former education minister Justyne Caruana, whose termination was basically instantaneous when compared with the foot-dragging we saw in relation to Clayton Bartolo. Sammut emphasizes that Clint Camilleri attempted to cover up his wrongdoing in front of the standards commissioner himself, a fact that was duly noted by the commissioner in his report.
11:24 | Sammut emphasizes that Muscat’s total absence from the workplace she was supposed to be in is simply not acceptable, and that Clint Camilleri’s approval of Muscat’s transfer to his ministry was a particularly severe breach of ethics due to the fact that he could not produce evidence to sustain the validity of the transfer. The only relevant precedent which the opposition could find in its research refers to British MP Derrick Conway who, in 2008, was found guilty of employing his son and paying him a higher rate than he was allowed. He was stripped of his Parliamentary titles and that he was suspended temporarily for ten days, a notable parallel in which the offence was less serious than what occurred in this case.
11:20 | Mark Anthony Sammut adds to his colleague’s points – Sammut refers to Bartolo’s submission to the committee, in which the latter apologised for his conduct. Camilleri, however, did not do so.
“Both of them are still justifying what they did by saying they followed the public procedures manual, which only means they formally obtained permission from the office of the prime minister to do so,” Sammut notes.
11:19 | Callus insists that the opposition wishes to obtain a full refund of the payment that was issued to Muscat in her role as consultant since it transpires that no work at all could be traced. He elaborates on the other points raised in the submission made by Camilleri, in which the Gozo minister claimed that he was following standard procedures when appointing Muscat as consultant. The MP notes that this was not the case as Muscat could not present qualifications which were relevant to that role.
11:16 | Opposition MP Ryan Callus files a motion which he reads out loud on behalf of the opposition – the opposition requests that, given that both ministers were caught in flagrant breach of ethical standards and that the committee endorsed the report unanimously, they should refund all public money that was given to Amanda Muscat when she was made a consultant, work she was not qualified to do and which she did not carry out.
Both Bartolo and Camilleri should apologise publicly in the House of Representatives and that Clayton Bartolo and Clint Camilleri should be suspended from Parliamentary duties for 30 days.
Callus also recommends that the prime minister must safeguard ethical standards by demanding Clint Camilleri’s resignation or otherwise dismissing him.
11:12 | We’re live from the standards committee meeting in which former tourism minister Clayton Bartolo and Gozo minister Clint Camilleri are set to face the committee’s verdict following the commissioner’s damning report. While Bartolo has resigned as tourism minister, Camilleri is still clinging to his office.
Speaker of the House Anglu Farrugia refers to letters sent in by both Bartolo and Camilleri, both of whom will not be attending the hearing in person. All committee members agree that these letters should be published.
Cover photo: Michael Kaden / NEWZ.mt
