IIP | ‘Government forced our hand to turn to European Parliament’ - Busuttil

In a quiet parliamentary debate on the Opposition’s second motion to revoke the legal notice on the Individual Investor Programme, the speeches revolved around the same arguments brought by both sides in the past months: the government insisted the programme would bring an injection of funds that will improve the citizens’ lives; the opposition argued that the legal notice is not in line with what was agreed with the European Commission.

As expected, the motion was defeated.

Contrary to previous debates on the subject, only a handful of MPs – both government and opposition – were present in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate. The majority joined in after 8pm before a vote on the motion took place at around 9:30pm.

While Prime Minister Joseph Muscat did not intervene in the discussion, leader of the Opposition Simon Busuttil closed off the debate.

Recounting the number of times the scheme was changed, Busuttil said the government should have made the programme good from the start.

“It had to be the European Parliament to provide shield for the Maltese and ensure there was a genuine link between applicants and the island,” he said.

Describing the government’s position shameful, Busuttil said the Opposition had to turn to the European Parliament to force the government’s hand in including a genuine link.

“We are Europe, something which the government has not realised. Something which the government conveniently likes to forget is that, before we went to the EP, there was had been no obligation.”

Rebutting allegations that it was the Opposition, with its intervention in the European Parliament, that caused harm to Malta’s reputation, Busuttil insisted it was the government’s idea to sell citizenships that had embarrassed the island.

Busuttil said the monitoring committee that will monitor processed applications should meet frequently. He said if the government does not publish the list of every person granted citizenship, including his nationality and country of origin, the Opposition would publish it itself.

He insisted that the monitoring committee should ensure that the applicant has given clear evidence that he had lived 12 months in Malta.

Finally, Busuttil said if the government does not voluntarily publish the Henley & Partners contract, the Opposition would ask the Public Accounts Committee to call for its publication and have it examined.

Closing off the debate on behalf of the government's side, home affairs minister Manuel Mallia said that the number of applications for Maltese citizenships received so far was "highly satisfactory".

Urging the opposition to withdraw its motion, Mallia said people were fed up of scaremongering and the road embarked by the PN was one which deceived the public. He went on to deny that concessionaire Henley and Partners would retain huge sum of monies which should be held by the government.

Kicking off the debate, PN deputy leader Mario de Marco took umbrage at the government’s stand against the opposition: “There is a growing attitude that whenever the Opposition proposes or criticises, the government retaliates by accusing us of being destructive.”

De Marco said that despite a number of proposals were put forward by the Nationalist Party, none of the amendments were taken on board.

“The law was passed as the government wanted it without any amendments,” De Marco said.

The deputy leader said the crux of the argument was about a genuine link, one did not take the form of a cash transaction. He said, that what irked the Maltese most was the perception given on an international scale of a country that was bankrupt.

“We don’t need a bailout. But this is the impression given and the Maltese, irrespective of whether they are Labourites or Nationalists, felt offended,” he said.

In a more impassioned speech, parliamentary secretary for justice Owen Bonnici said the Labour government had been able to make use of an opportunity to change the country for the better.

“Faced by opportunities, some ask ‘why?’ and we ask ‘why not?’. It is an historic opportunity to create a fund that will finance projects to improve people’s lives. This is an agreement which enjoys the EU’s green light,” Bonnici said.

The junior minister said that no other programme could be as genuine as one that set up a national fund.

Bonnici reiterated that the an applicant had to prove he had been residing in Malta for 12 months before the citizenship is granted – a concept which according to the Opposition was not adequately reflected in the legal notice.

In fact, it remains unclear as to what “effective residency” means – other than the applicant must purchase a residence in Malta.

Bonnici also said that once the European Commission approved the scheme, it also didn’t make sense to leave the capping. He however hit out at Opposition leader Simon Busuttil, arguing that “nothing satisfies him”.

Bonnici went on to urge the PN to repeal their motion: “People will not forget how you turned against Malta. But now you have the opportunity to send the message that this parliament is united in making this programme a success.

“Because this programme will be a success and it will be the citizens who will benefit from it.”

Dubbing it the “citizenship scheme v5”, PN MP Francis Zammit Dimech said that the agreement reached between Malta and the EU had been different than what was originally proposed in November.

As he went through the various changes that the scheme underwent in a matter of weeks, Zammit Dimech said these changes proved that the government itself couldn’t agree on the matter.

On his part, parliamentary secretary for competitiveness Edward Zammit Lewis hailed the IIP as “a programme that we should boast of”.

He admitted that the matter could have been handled better from the start.

Referring to questions on what an effective residency meant, Zammit Lewis retaliated by telling the Opposition that, after 25 years in government, the Nationalists themselves “weren’t able to come up with a specific definition”.

“When you introduced the permanent residency scheme and in the Income Tax Act, there was no specific definition other than ‘an individual who resides in Malta’,” he said, pointing out that the same applied to the High Network Individuals programme.

Zammit Lewis however added that those who “knew” how tax systems operated, they would understand why there is no specific definition of residency: “Because that is what favours our country.”

Taking the floor, author of the motion Jason Azzopardi raised questions on the role which Henley and Partners will be playing in the programme, also questioning what would happen if the concessionaries were to “flee with the cash” or if it goes bankrupt.

Azzopardi also questioned how Identity Malta Agency and IIP Malta were situated in the same building – at Dar il-Mediterran – if Henley and Partners had truly lost their exclusivity over the programme.

IIP Malta is a subsidiary of Henley and Partners.

“How fair is it if the two entities are situated in the same building?” Azzopardi said.

The Opposition is also proposing that the legal notice removes references to the concessionaire – H&P – as this meant that Henley was involved at every stage of the process including the presentation of applications by other concessionaires.

“Henley and Partners is a referee and a player at the same time. It has an obvious advantage over other competitors, including Identity Malta,” Azzopardi said.

The MP expressed concern over the discretion granted to the minister to allow citizenship to applicants who had a criminal record: “It’s even more serious that a criminal or someone who is admittedly a criminal, threat to national security or harmful to Malta’s image can nonetheless be given citizenship.”

But what shocked Azzopardi more what that HP could keep Malta’s money for up to two years without an escrow account.