Former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat told a parliamentary committee on Tuesday that he believes Konrad Mizzi did a good job as a government minister, but that Mizzi could have been more transparent.
Muscat was facing questions during a sitting of parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, which is currently hearing testimony on the National Audit Office’s report regarding the Electrogas power station deal.
Committee chair and PN MP Darren Carabott asked Muscat, amongst other things, whether with hindsight he thinks it was a good decision to appoint Konrad Mizzi to the ministries he was appointed. “Yes,” Muscat simply replied.
“Do you think he did a good job?,” Carabott asked; “Yes,” Muscat replied again.
“Was he transparent?,” Carabott asked; “He could have worked better”, the former Prime Minister replied.
Pressured to elaborate on that, Muscat simply said that he “could have been wiser in the way he behaved.”
Asked what he was referring to, Muscat replied “isn’t it obvious?”
Muscat was then referred to the testimony of former Finance Minister Edward Scicluna, who Carabott says had also said that Mizzi lacked transparency, with the question being whether there is a contradiction between this and Muscat not regretting his decision to appoint him and still believing he did a good job.
Muscat replied that had Mizzi not managed the power station deal, solved the out of stock medicines issues, slashed the operations waiting list and made electricity bills cheaper, then he would say that it was the wrong decision. “But he did good things,” Muscat continued.
He also added that Scicluna was “totally misquoted” – and he said that Scicluna had testified that it is normal for a Prime Minister to have a group which is closer to him.
In his case, he said he had “multiple groups on multiple sectors” which were close to him.
“Are these all kitchen cabinets then?” Muscat questioned.
The series of questions brought to an end a PAC sitting which initially started with Muscat giving a 40 minute presentation to address what he termed as a number of points which had come up throughout the testimonies which the PAC has heard across the last two legislatures on the matter.
Muscat told the committee that he got to know Konrad Mizzi in around 2011, after he received an email from Mizzi’s father – whom he already knew – saying that his son was thinking of returning to Malta and was interested in politics.
Muscat was asked who came up with the idea of a gas power station, and says that it was the PN government in 2005 which came up with the idea, but it was he and Konrad Mizzi who came up with the idea of a private-public partnership in order to do it.
Carabott asked why Muscat chose Konrad Mizzi to lead have the energy portfolio. “He was the most competent person in that sector,” Muscat replied.
PN Whip Robert Cutajar then asked about the 2014 reshuffle, where Mizzi was also given the Health portfolio as well and questioned whether Muscat was now the most competent person in that sector as well.
“It is a valid question,” Muscat began. He said that Mizzi’s competence is mostly in project management – and to him, the power station was not an issue of energy but of project management in order for the project to be done.
He says that when he saw that the project was moving forward, he placed him there to focus also on the “crisis in the health sector” at the time.
Muscat gave a further run-down of every Cabinet role Mizzi was given and says that each one was consistently one which required project management.
PL’s MoU with New Energy World was ‘non-binding’ and only to prove that people were interested in building the power station – Muscat
Muscat began by referring to the government’s aims when it came to the energy sector prior to the 2013 election. He says his aim was, initially in opposition but then as a government, firstly to reduce utility bills by 25%, and secondly to reduce pollution by closing the old power station in Marsa and moving from heavy fuel oil to gas.
In both these cases, the government has been successful and remains successful today.
The idea for gas was first mentioned in 2005 by Enemalta when the PN was in government and which said that between 2006 and 2015 there was to be a transition from oil to gas, Muscat said.
However, there soon after the tender for the heavy fuel oil plant was published – in contradiction with this strategy.
On whether the PL had a pre-agreement for the power station, Muscat said that between 2011 and 2013, the main criticism towards the party was that what it was proposing – ergo making utility bills cheaper – could not be done.
It was in this sense that the party signed a Memorandum of Understanding with New Energy World, which he said was a non-binding one.
He explained that New Energy World was led by the same people who are the foreign owners of the Excelsior Hotel and have investments in power stations in Asia. They had been referred to him by a PN MP – whom he did not wish to name – who had been tired of trying to push the investor towards the government.
Muscat said that the MoU was so not binding that when New Energy World did not win the tender, it filed a case on this and it was found to have no basis, while their elimination was justified by the NAO.
A request for the PL to be asked to present a copy of the MoU was voted down by the government members because the document was considered to be a party document.
He “categorically” denied that there were any talks with Electrogas or any of those involved in Electrogas prior to the 2013 general election. “There were never these types of discussions. They were totally out of the picture.”
‘I am not here to defend anyone’ – Muscat
Muscat at one point took a significant tangent and referred to what was written by Daphne Caruana Galizia on the power station and the “theory” that the power station and all about it had to do with her death.
“I am not here to defend anyone,” he said, adding that a murder is a murder and that those who did it must face justice.
“I paid the highest political price as I had to resign. I am here to defend the selection process and the fact that if it weren’t for this project, our country would have not come out of the rut it was in – and I have no problem in defending this project,” he said.
On the effect the power station had on the country – Muscat says that the interconnector and the power station complement each other, and that one cannot exist without the other.
“Without the interconnector, the power station would have been a flop. Without the power station, the people would have to pay €125 million more over 5 years. So they need each other,” Muscat said.
Shortcomings found by NAO were ‘administrative’ and outcome of tender would have been the same – Muscat
The NAO’s report, he said, pointed out that there were shortcomings but that these were of an administrative nature. He continued that the NAO said that there was transparency and a level playing field in the selection, and that the shortcomings pointed out did not skew the final result.
PN MP Graham Bencini later quoted a part of the NAO’s report where the auditor general writes that at times the process “was not fair and impartial.”
Muscat disagrees with the interpretation that this conflicts with his statement that the shortcomings were administrative in nature, as – he says – the outcome would have ultimately been the same.
PL MP Glenn Bedingfield also asked whether the European Commission ever showed any concern, requests, worries or doubts on the project.
Muscat referred to the adjudication process, and said that the Commission was involved when it came to state aid, on the procurement process and on how things progressed. It is public that on all of this, the European Commission gave the thumbs up, he said.
Turning to Gasol’s departure from the concession, Muscat admitted that there is validity in the point that more due diligence on them could have been done – but he said that an analysis had shown that had Gasol not been part of the consortium to begin with then Electrogas would have still won the tender.
He declared that he never took part in a single meeting which had anything to do with the selection or drafting of the tender. Muscat said that he was only kept abreast of the key developments throughout the process.
As to why Enemalta didn’t construct the power station itself, Muscat said: “Because it was bankrupt.”
“Enemalta is not a matter of pointing the finger at one government or another. It’s a set of decisions by a lot of people which ultimately leads to a catastrophe,” Muscat said in response to a later question on the state energy company.
The government, he said, was not in a strong position either being that it was under an Excessive Deficit Procedure by the European Union, arguing that the choice was to either do nothing or involve the private sector in it.
The fact that a tanker was used rather than on-shore tanks, as the PL presentation prior to the election had explained, shows that there was no pre-agreement with Electrogas because the tanker wasn’t part of the presentation, Muscat said.
Muscat continued that the tanker is a temporary solution until Malta is connected to the European gas grid, and it is also a solution which takes up far less space.
Its value today, given the circumstances brought about by the Russia-Ukraine War, has increased exponentially, Muscat said, adding that a number of countries such as Germany and Norway are now also using similar systems.
Carabott quoted the NAO saying that although the offshore solution was more readily achievable, the various assertions made by Enemalta justifying it were “factually incorrect.”
Asked whether he agrees with this assertion, Muscat said that he doesn’t know what the NAO discussed with Enemalta, but said that it was more achievable and also had in mind that within 10 to 15 years Malta would be connected to the European grid with a gas pipeline, which would result in the removal of the tanker.
Carabott asked who recommended the decision to go with the tanker option. Muscat replied that he wasn’t sure whether it came from Enemalta or the private sector.
Government security of supply agreements were to mitigate risks – Muscat
On the government’s security of supply agreements, Muscat said that the government had signed the security of supply agreement saying that if Enemalta were to go bankrupt, then the government would replace it as the purchaser of electricity. It is due to this security of supply agreement, he added, that during the Russia-Ukraine War Malta had no issues when it came to gas supply.
The security of supply agreement needed the go ahead from the European Union, which Muscat said would have taken time. Therefore, the government took a “calculated risk” to go for a temporary guarantee between that point and when the EU gave its approval.
This meant that the government would guarantee 80% of the financing required for Electrogas, which would have allowed it to go to the banks in order to close off the agreements with them.
It’s true that they went to the banks and closed things off on a government guarantee, he said, but this meant that they could proceed at market price, Muscat pointed out. He also said that Electrogas paid €12 million for it, which was then used for a social budget.
Muscat also commented on the agreement struck with Azerbaijan, saying that this was not secret as had been alleged, as it went through Cabinet and the NAO had access to it given it commented on it in the report.
Muscat said the government’s logic was that, if something were to happen between Electrogas and Socar – the Azeri energy supplier – then Socar would be contractually bound to sell gas to the Maltese government instead.
“There was a mitigation of risks on every point,” Muscat said on both security of supply agreements. Both these agreements are no longer in place because, Muscat added, there is no longer a need for them.
Muscat also admitted that Enemalta did – and does – pay the €2 million yearly excise tax for Electrogas, but noted that this is “part of a bigger story.”
He said that Electrogas gave the government €30 million in advance in order to make electricity bills cheaper, which answers why the bills were made cheaper before the power station was up and running.
The reduction in price came from an “unprecedented” subsidy from the private sector, he said.
He says that this was all part of wider negotiations which the EU were involved in to see whether the agreement is bankable and fair for both sides.
Part of this, for instance, was that Enemalta would receive compensation for every time the power station tripped – and all these measures together meant that Electrogas’ capital investment increased from €350 million to €500 million, which Muscat saying that this more than makes up for the €2 million per year.
You may read the full commentary on the sitting, below.
16:08: The PAC will continue next Tuesday, but it is unclear whether it will be Muscat who will testify again as the former Prime Minister said that he has a number of commitments overseas coming up.
16:07: Carabott is reminded that the plenary will start very soon, and says he has one last set of questions.
He asks Muscat whether with hindsight he thinks it was a good decision to appoint Konrad Mizzi to the ministries he was appointed. “Yes,” Muscat replies.
“Do you think he did a good job?,” Carabott asks; “Yes,” Muscat replies again.
“Was he transparent?,” Carabott asks; “He could have worked better”, the former Prime Minister replies.
Pressured to elaborate on that, Muscat simply says that he “could have been wiser in the way he behaved.”
Asked what he is referring to, Muscat replies “isn’t it obvious?”
The final question is a reference to the testimony of former Finance Minister Edward Scicluna, who Carabott says had also said that Mizzi lacked transparency, with the question being whether there is a contradiction between this and Muscat not regretting his decision to appoint him and still believing he did a good job.
Muscat replies that had Mizzi not managed the power station, solved the out of stock medicines issues, slashed the operations waiting list and made electricity bills cheaper, then he would say that it was the wrong decision. “But he did good things,” Muscat continues.
He also adds that Scicluna was “totally misquoted” – he says that Scicluna had testified that it is normal for a Prime Minister to have a group which is closer to him.
In his case, he says he had “multiple groups on multiple sectors” which were close to him.
“Are these all kitchen cabinets then?” he asks.
And with that, the sitting for today comes to an end.
16:01: Muscat is asked how he got to know Konrad Mizzi, to which he answers that if he recalls correctly, it was Mizzi’s father who sent him an email saying that his son was thinking of returning to Malta and was interested to politics, and it was then that he met him, in around 2011. Keith Schembri got to know Mizzi after that, he says.
Asked whether Mizzi remained politically responsible for the energy sector after the Panama Papers were broken, Muscat said that he was politically responsible himself.
Carabott asks whether Mizzi remained responsible for Electrogas when he was Tourism Minister, Muscat replies in the negative.
Carabott however goes back to the testimony last week of Permanent Secretary for the Tourism Ministry Ronald Mizzi, where there was an email between him and Turab Musayev on an article due to be published about the power station project by The Guardian.
Muscat is handed a copy of the document, while Bedingfield tries to suggest that Muscat needs to be given more context for the exchange and that this isn’t the type of question which is relevant.
Carabott poses it again and asks whether it was standard practice for a Permanent Secretary to answer questions about something which is not in his remit.
Muscat says that his government was a single team which worked together, and that it appears that Mizzi was answering because there were implications about the Tourism Minister himself.
15:50: Muscat answers another question and says that the PL only signed one MoU – the one already mentioned with New Energy World.
Carabott asks why Muscat chose Konrad Mizzi to lead have the energy portfolio. “He was the most competent person in that sector,” Muscat replies.
Cutajar now asks about the 2014 reshuffle, where Mizzi was also given the Health portfolio as well and questions whether Muscat was now the most competent person in that sector as well.
“It is a valid question,” Muscat begins. He says that Mizzi’s competence is mostly in project management – and to him, the power station was not an issue of energy but of project management in order for the project to be done.
He says that when he saw that the project was moving forward, he placed him to focus also on the “crisis in the health sector” at the time.
Muscat gives a further run-down of every Cabinet role Mizzi was given and says that each one was consistently one which required project management.
15:45: Muscat is asked about consultancies which the PL may have received from people and whether they had been also consulting the government.
He refers to David Galea who was assisting Enemalta at the time, but was also consulted by the PL on technical matters. Muscat however says that he was not aware of any conflicts of interest in this regard.
Carabott now asks about documentation which showed that Yorgen Fenech was given privileged access to confidential documents and correspondence for at least three projects and ventures spearheaded by Konrad Mizzi.
Muscat points out that the documents are dated after the tender for Electrogas was completed and granted.
He says that if there was correspondence that it is a matter where the government’s partner has already been chosen and there is no competitive advantage to be gained by the exchange in information, he does not see an issue in it.
15:35: Carabott’s questions turn to the gas tanker. He quotes the NAO saying that although the offshore solution was more readily achievable, the various assertions made by Enemalta justifying it were “factually incorrect.”
Muscat is asked whether he agrees with this assertion. He says that he doesn’t know what the NAO discussed with Enemalta, but says that it was more achievable and also had the fact in mind that within 10 to 15 years Malta would be connected to the European grid with a gas pipeline, which would result in the removal of the tanker.
Carabott asks who recommended the decision to go with the tanker option. Muscat says that he isn’t sure whether it came from Enemalta or the private sector.
PL MP Alex Muscat asks why he pushed for this expediency with lowering the bills. “Because the country’s economy was moving forward on the basis of the promise for cheaper bills,” Muscat says, adding that the economy would have stagnated had this not been done.
15:29: Muscat is asked who came up with the idea of a gas power station, and says that it was the PN government in 2005 which came up with the idea but it was he and Konrad Mizzi who came up with the idea of a private-public partnership in order to do it.
He says he is not aware of any meetings which were done with any consortium on the project while the PL was in the opposition.
He adds that there are people who say that they had eaten dinner with him while he was abroad, so some things shouldn’t be “taken at face value.”
Muscat says that he did have meetings with the Fenech family, for example, and usually these were with George Fenech but the subject at the top of the agenda was always the Arriva bus service. The power station, he says, never featured in these meetings.
15:20: Carabott now asks how the idea of the proposal started within the PL.
Muscat says that he was part of the idea, as was Konrad Mizzi. He says that a part of his job was to meet people, and he had a notebook filled with what he felt were good ideas.
The idea of having a public-private partnership was one such idea – he notes that it worked for Electrogas, but didn’t work for the hospitals “for other reasons.”
Carabott says he’d love to ask about the hospitals deal, but will stick to the power station.
“Pleasures yet to come,” Muscat chuckles referring to the hospitals deal.
15:13: Bencini quotes a part of the NAO’s report where the auditor general writes that at times the process “was not fair and impartial.”
Muscat disagrees with the interpretation that this conflicts with his statement that the shortcomings were administrative in nature, as – he says – the outcome would have ultimately been the same.
Bartolo asks about the financial situation of Enemalta in 2013, and Muscat says that the first thing he was told that the company was bankrupt.
He says that a senior civil servant who he has high respect for told him in their first meeting that the government should try to weasel out of the promise to make the bills cheaper because there was no money for it.
“Enemalta is not a matter of pointing the finger at one government or another. It’s a set of decisions by a lot of people which ultimately leads to a catastrophe,” Muscat says.
One of the key turnaround points, he says, was the Chinese investment. That gave an indication to credit rating agencies that the company could be back on its feet without government guarantees.
Bartolo asks whether it was true that there are local banks which would have faced closing had Enemalta gone under, and Muscat agrees.
Bedingfield now asks about Shanghai Electric – the Chinese investors in Enemalta – and whether they were involved in the tender process, to which Muscat says that they are not.
Ellul is next up with a question on why the government went to Azerbaijan for energy supply, to which Muscat says that Joe Debono Grech – who was the EU rapporteur on Azerbaijan – had recommended going there.
The PL MPs in the committee are unusually active with questions in today’s sitting.
15:05: Muscat takes a significant tangent and refers to what was written by Daphne Caruana Galizia on the power station and the “theory” that the power station and all about it had to do with her death.
“I am not here to defend anyone,” he says, adding that a murder is a murder and that those who did it must face justice.
“I paid the highest political price as I had to resign. I am here to defend the selection process and the fact that if it weren’t for this project, our country would have not come out of the rut it was in – and I have no problem in defending this project,” he says.
15:02: Bedingfield asks whether the European Commission ever showed any concern, requests, worries or doubts on the project.
Muscat refers to the adjudication process, and says that the Commission were involved when it came to state aid, on the procurement process and on how things progressed. It is public that on all of this, the European Commission gave the thumbs up.
14:58: The PL members on the committee vote against the MoU signed between the PL and New EnergyWorld being tabled as it is a party document, but the committee then approved a request for two other government documents which Muscat mentioned.
Muscat is asked about that MoU: he says that it was then never referred to in government. It was merely a piece of paper to show that the power station was actually possible and that there were people interested in it.
Bencini asks about whether the banks had any concerns about financing Electrogas, to which Muscat replies that they had put “their money where their mouths are” and financed the project.
14:53: Muscat admits that Enemalta did – and does – pay the €2 million yearly excise tax for Electrogas, but notes that this is “part of a bigger story.”
He notes that Electrogas gave the government €30 million in advance in order to make electricity bills cheaper, which answers why the bills were made cheaper before the power station was up and running.
The reduction in price came from an “unprecedented” subsidy from the private sector, he says.
He says that this was all part of wider negotiations which the EU were involved in to see whether the agreement is bankable and fair for both sides.
Part of these, for instance, was that Enemalta would get compensation for every time the power station tripped – and all these measures together meant that Electrogas’ capital investment increased from €350 million to €500 million, which Msucat says more than makes up for the €2 million per year.
On the effect the power station had on the country – Muscat says that the interconnector and the power station complement each other, and that one cannot exist without the other.
“Without the interconnector, the power station would have been a flop. Without the power station, the people would have to pay €125 million more over 5 years. So they need each other,” Muscat says.
That concludes his presentation to the committee. He will now face questions from the committee.
14:47: Muscat comments about the agreement struck with Azerbaijan, saying that this was not secret as had been alleged as it went through Cabinet and the NAO had access to it as it commented on it in its report.
Muscat says that the government’s logic was that if something were to happen between Electrogas and Socar – the Azeri energy supplier – then Socar would be contractually bound to sell gas to the Maltese government instead.
“There was a mitigation of risks on every point,” Muscat says on both security of supply agreements. Both these agreements are no longer in place because, Muscat says, there is no longer a need for them.
14:42: The security of supply agreement needed the go ahead from the European Union, which Muscat says would have taken time. Therefore, the government took a “calculated risk” to do a temporary guarantee for between that point and to when the EU gave its approval.
This meant that the government would guarantee 80% of the financing required for Electrogas, which would have allowed it to go to the banks in order to close off the agreements with them.
It’s true that they went to the banks and closed things off on a government guarantee, but this meant that they could proceed at market price. He also says that Electrogas paid €12 million for it, which went directly to be used to help people.
14:38: Turning to Gasol’s departure from the concession, Muscat admits that there is validity in the point that more due diligence on them could have been done – but he says that an analysis had shown that had Gasol not been part of the consortium to begin with then Electrogas would have still won the tender.
He says that the government had signed the security of supply agreement saying that if Enemalta were to go bankrupt, then the government would replace it as the purchaser of electricity. It is due to this security of supply agreement, he says, that during the Russia-Ukraine War Malta had no issues when it came to gas supply.
14:35: Why was a tanker done and not on-shore tanks as the PL presentation prior to the election had explained is the next question which Muscat says he will tackle.
He says that the fact that there was a tanker shows that there was no pre-agreement with Electrogas because the tanker wasn’t part of the presentation.
Muscat continues that the tanker is a temporary solution until Malta is connected to the European gas grid, and it is also a solution which takes up far less space.
It’s value today given the circumstances brought about by the Russia-Ukraine War has increased exponentially, and Muscat says that a number of countries such as Germany and Norway are now also using similar systems.
14:34: Why didn’t Enemalta do the power station itself, is the next question which Muscat brings up. “Because it was bankrupt,” he says.
The government, he says, was not in a strong position either being that it was under an Excessive Deficit Procedure by the European Union so the choice was to either do nothing or involve the private sector in it.
14:32: He declares that he never took part in a single meeting which had anything to do with the selection or drafting of the tender. Muscat says that he was only kept abreast of the key developments throughout the process.
He continues that a parallel can be drawn with another report on the BWSC power station by the same NAO.
Carabott stops Muscat to tell him that his twenty minutes are up. He gets an extension on his presentation – though him saying that he’s only four pages into his nine page document is greeted with a desire for him to not take up too much more time.
14:30: He says that “categorically” that there were no talks with Electrogas or any of those involved in Electrogas prior to the 2013 general election. “There were never these types of discussions. They were totally out of the picture.”
Muscat says that after the 2013 general election, certain elements of the PN tried to do all that they can to try and see that the project does not happen.
The NAO’s report, he says, says that there were shortcomings but that these were of an administrative nature. He says that the NAO said that there was transparency and a level playing field in the selection, and that the shortcomings pointed out did not skew the final result.
14:26: Muscat says that the need for the new power station – a question frequently asked during past sittings – was proven by the NAO itself in its report.
He moves on to the question on whether the PL had a pre-agreement for the power station.
Muscat says that between 2011 and 2013, the main criticism towards the party was that what it was proposing – ergo making utility bills cheaper – could not be done.
He continues that there was a company called Sargas which had proposed a carbon capture method for a new power station to then PN Minister John Dalli. That was shelved, but the PL then had discussions with Sargas to see their studies.
Muscat now addresses questions on a Memorandum of Understanding with a company called New Energy World. He confirms the existence of the MoU and says that it was non-binding.
He explains that New Energy World was led by the same people who are the foreign owners of the Excelsior Hotel and have investments in power stations in Asia. They had been referred to him by a PN MP – whom he does not wish to name – who had been tired of trying to push the investor towards the government.
Muscat says that the MoU was so not binding that when EnergyWorld did not win the tender, it filed a case on this and it was found to have no basis, while their elimination was justified by the NAO.
14:19: The idea for gas was first mentioned in 2005 by Enemalta when the PN was in government and which said that between 2006 and 2015 there was to be a transition from oil to gas, Muscat says.
However, there soon after the tender for the heavy fuel oil plant was published – in contradiction with this strategy.
Muscat says he won’t go into “conspiracy theories” but he believes that the reason to stick with oil was because gas turbines and gas were more expensive at the time. His government’s revolution – he says – was to involve the private sector.
14:15: Muscat begins by referring to the government’s aims when it came to the energy sector prior to the 2013 election. He says his aim as, initially an opposition, but then as a government was firstly to reduce utility bills by 25%, and secondly to reduce pollution by closing the old power station in Marsa and moving from heavy fuel oil to gas.
In both these cases, the government has been successful and remains successful today.
Muscat says that there aren’t many options: coal, oil, gas, renewable, and in Malta’s case connecting to the grid of another country.
Ultimately, Muscat says, the decision was taken to go for the least polluting fossil fuel – gas – and the interconnector, which involves risks which are out of control of the country as it relies on Italy, together with renewables which everybody agrees with, but which has the problem for a lack of space.
14:10: Muscat is summoned to the desk. He is accompanied by his assistant Mark Farrugia – who had replaced Keith Schembri as his chief of staff very briefly before Muscat’s ultimately resigned the premiership. The former Prime Minister says he will testify under oath. Before the questions begin, Muscat asks whether he can make a statement on some things said during the committee’s investigation in the past weeks and months.
He says he will take around 20 minutes, and is granted permission by the committee to go ahead – and so he begins.
14:07: Carabott goes through some answers received from the Tourism Ministry in relation to last week’s witness, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry Ronald Mizzi. Carabott comments on the way forward, attracting a delayed and muted agreement from the Labour MPs – who are all browsing their phones.
14:05: The PAC is made up of seven members: four from the government and three from the Opposition. Glenn Beddingfield, Andy Ellul, Alex Muscat and Clayton Bartolo are the four who represent the government on the committee, while Darren Carabott – who also chairs the committee, David Agius and Graham Bencini are the members of the Opposition.
It seems that for today, PN Whip Robert Cutajar is replacing Agius – who is currently abroad as Deputy Speaker on parliamentary duties.
13:55: Good afternoon and thanks for joining us for this sitting. The PAC is expected to start at around 2pm and it could potentially run for up to two hours before stopping when Parliament’s full plenary sitting for the day begins.
Former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat is expected to be the main witness of the day, and he will be no doubt grilled over his involvement in the Electrogas power station project.