Commission stands by ‘jumped the gun’ comments as MPs raise questions on latest Delimara contract controversies

“We stand by what we said and have nothing more to add,” the same official said when faced with a reply from a government spokesman who challenged this paper to ask the source to explain which part of the press release was inaccurate.

On Tuesday, a senior official in Commissioner Michel Barnier’s Cabinet told MaltaToday that contrary to last week’s announcement by government on the closure of the infringement procedures, “Malta jumped the gun,” adding that “the contacts were informal and at DG level, so we don’t know how such a statement was made.”

The official said: “there may have been informal contacts at that level, and some talk about the Commission being satisfied with the replies given by the Maltese government, but there still are several hoops to go through which will not be over before mid next year. It looks like the government has jumped the gun.”

“A final decision will eventually be taken within the College of Commissioners, and as far as this office is concerned, the Malta matter is still being dealt with.”

The EC was investigating whether the Maltese government’s change in emission laws at the last minute had favoured BWSC, the winning tenderer, over Israeli tenderer Bateman’s cheaper gas technology.

The European Commission’s declarations have triggered an immediate reaction on the PN backbench, with MP’s demanding explanations from their own government.

While former Minister Jesmond Mugliett stressed that the story reported by MaltaToday “baffled many,” he called for an official clarification “explaining the circumstances of the Department of Information statement last week.”

MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando said that “no one can deny that the sooner the BWSC issue is resolved, the better for my government…”

 “It has become a source of embarrassment which we would do well to put behind us, and if I were the Prime Minister, I would be very disappointed at anyone who led me to believe that infringement procedures instituted by the EU have been closed when it actually appears not to be the case. This can only add to our embarrassment,” Pullicino Orlando said.

But the multi-million power station contract was driven into further controversy this week as comments made by Minister Austin Gatt before the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament, triggered an immediate diplomatic backlash from the State of Israel.

On Thursday, the Israeli ambassador to Malta, Gideon Meir, reacted sternly to claims by infrastructure minister Austin Gatt in the Public Accounts Committe that former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert allegedly attempted to speak to Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi on the failed bid by Israeli firm Bateman for the Delimara power station extension.

“The State of Israel suggests that whoever needs to explain the odd results of the Delimara power station tender should focus on the issue itself instead of trying to involve us by using false accusations,” a spokesperson for the Rome-based ambassador told MaltaToday.

Spokesperson Yariv Ovadia said:  “the allegations suggesting that the Israeli Ambassador or any other Israeli official had threatened any Maltese official are totally false.”

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi was said to have refused a phone call from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Gatt told the PAC that Israeli company Hutney Bateman had “threatened and offered incentives to the government in order to win the contract.”

The minister added that Ehud Olmert, who was disgraced over corruption scandals, insisted to speak over the phone with Prime Minister Gonzi over the bid, but the Prime Minister “refused to take the call as politicians do not get involved in contracts.”

Gatt stressed that the refusal came in the wake of a previous meeting between Prime Minister Gonzi and the Israeli Ambassador accredited to Malta.

“We feel sorry that the integrity of the State of Israel and the Ambassador of Israel to Malta were dragged into this internal Maltese affair. We suggest that whoever needs to explain the odd results of the tender should focus on the issue itself instead of trying to involve us by using false accusations,” Ovadia said.

Gatt told the PAC that the Israeli ambassador had warned the Prime Minister  that "the issue is going to embarrass the Maltese government as the Malta Labour Party has good contacts with the Hutney Bateman consortium and has all the details of the tender."

But Ovadia said that “during the routine rounds of meetings of the Ambassador, various people on the island expressed their concern that apparently there are irregularities in this tender. At that point, so as not to interfere with internal Maltese controversy, the Ambassador decided to refrain from dealing with the subject. He also informed Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi of his decision.”

The Israeli statement ended with a bizarre congratulatory note on the double-taxation agreement with Israel that is being finalised “to the great satisfaction of the Maltese authorities and will be signed in the very near future.”

Ovadia said the Ambassador of Israel “acted in a proper manner and as part of his duties to promote economic cooperation between Malta and Israel.”

The controversy that erupted with Israel, also prompted MP’s Mugliett and Pullicino Orlando to comment.

“I feel that the Israeli ambassador should be given the opportunity to give his side of the story in front of Minister Gatt and the rest of the PAC,” Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando told MaltaToday.

On the other hand, Jesmond Mugliett stressed his belief that “this is not the first instance when an ambassador tried to make recommendations on behalf of a company from his country regarding a major tender issued in Malta.”

“My definition of bullying is pressure accompanied by threats, and if an ambassador made threats, diplomatic protocol has its procedures of redress,” Mugliett said, adding that “threats by an ambassador are a serious matter and I would like to know if the Maltese government made any official protestations on the matter.”

Meanwhile the Public Accounts Committee is entangled in another controversy, that of summoning witnesses before it to explain more about their role during the procurement process of the €230 million power station contract.

Jesmond Mugliett is of the opinion that “resistance to hearing witnesses is not helping government’s credibility on the matter,” while Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando stressed that “a number of my colleagues feel that once the Auditor General is allowed to answer any questions that might arise from his detailed report on the BWSC contract, any witnesses which may help to clarify certain points arising from the same report should be allowed to do so.”

He added that this is in line with the Prime Minister’s declarations about the matter.

Another PN backbencher, MP Franco Debono also stressed that he sees “nothing wrong in considering the testimony of other witnesses, once , and only after, the Auditor General finishes giving his evidence.”

The PN MP who had shocked government last year by deliberately missing a parliamentary vote, also added that “any witness who declares that he does not wish to testify because he could incriminate himself, must be immediately summoned by the Commissioner of Police for questioning and investigation.”

Franco Debono said that while the Auditor General is an official of the House of Representatives who enjoys the respect of both sides, the PAC is ‘also an organ of the House that must be respected too.”