Conflict of interest? How about Roderick Galdes being a Mepa employee and voting in parliament on issues directly involving his employer?

It presupposes nothing. I was merely commenting on the existence or otherwise of 5(e) Chap. 113. Whether or not there was a conflict of interest or an interest that had or did not require to be declared is not my concern.

L-istess bhalma ghamel fuq l-iSpinning and Weaving Ta’ Qali – nehha minn fuq l-istonku imbarazz Ciniz biex gabu hawn Malta biex imbaghad kullhadd jaf meta hadet in-nar.

Jekk forsi ghadek zghir u dawn ma tiftakarhomx ahjar isaqsi lill-ommok u l-missierek biex jghidulek x`gara.

Tal-Muzew is both right and wrong. The 5(e) in Chap. 113 he’s referring to exists and is to be found in the schdule to the act. This is the code of ethics that regulates the behaviour of members of the House. 5(e) warrants the MP to declare his conflict of interest prior to a vote in the House. However, this mandatory requirement applies only to a vote to be taken at the second reading of a bill – not a motion. Furthermore, it is also understood, by virtue of the way the clause that has been drafted, that it is not simply any Bill that is being debated before Parliament, but one where the conflict of interest to be declared is relevant to the Bill in question.

[Daphne – That presupposes a conflict of interest, and there was no such conflict of interest. Please distinguish between the existence of a conflict of interest and declaring it. The two are different. You cannot declare a conflict of interest that simply is not there. The speaker of the house did not rule that Charlo Bonnici could vote despite his conflict of interest. He ruled that a conflict of interest did not exist.]

Read 113, number 5e

It seems that Muscat was right about Charlo Bonnici.

[Daphne – He wasn’t right, and there’s no 5e. And you’re beginning to annoy me, thinking you’re being ‘sly and subtle’ by pretending to be anti-Labour and then popping in to post links which you clearly believe back Labour up – or links to stories in L-orizzont which you think should get a wider readership, while making out that you’re shocked at what’s been written. I’ve humoured you thus far but there’s only so much irritation I can take. Do you honestly believe I’m that stupid? Far better to be straightforward, use your real name, and say whatever it is you have to say, like a couple of other Labour supporters on this blog. God forbid we should reach the stage where MPs are barred from participating in a vote because they are employees of a company whose directors are directors of another company which provides services to the company that got the tender. So what are we to say about Charles Mangion, taking notarial fees on the contract for the land deal at Pender Place, then criticising it in parliament and voting against?]

[Daphne – Do you know how much the Dry Docks cost the Maltese tax-payer since the British left in 1979? The cost of the power station is chicken-feed next to that, but I never heard anyone in the Labour Party complain. And might I remind you that the power station is an investment in the country’s infrastructure. The Dry Docks was just throwing good money after bad. Malta never got anything in return. And do you know why the Dry Docks – intended for the captive market of the Royal Navy and never as a purely commercial venture – were not shut down when Malta ceased to be a British military base, as they should have been? Because Mintoff didn’t want there to be any negative consequences to his ‘kicking out the British’. He knew that the single greatest worry his electors had was the closure of the docks and the yards. So to save Mintoff’s ugly little face, this country and its taxpayers had to carry the crippling burden of the dry docks for another 30 years. Think of all the power stations we could have bought with that kind of money.]