Brussels sprouts

The plot thickens. Arguments for and against the purchase of the Dar Malta in Brussels are sprouting from all angles.

Herman Grech (August 11) now informs us that our country's property is far and away the most expensive among the purchases made by the 10 new member states.

Why is it that Lithuania, for example, with a gross domestic product of approximately €25 billion invested the equivalent of Lm3.5 million in its permanent mission building while tiny Malta with a GDP of under €5 billion felt the need to invest Lm9 million for the same purpose?

Why did the Czech Republic with a GDP 20 times the size of Malta's only spend Lm2.5 million?

According to a report by Ivan Camilleri from Brussels (August 9), Ivan Falzon, chairman of Mimcol, defended the government's decision to purchase a building for Lm9 million in Brussels. He tries to justify the decision by informing us that the need for a larger building had been felt ever since Malta began the process of joining the EU. No argument about that.

He also tells us that the present premises are too small to house the complement required for successful EU negotiations. No argument about that either.

He then adds, rather superfluously, I would think, that the premises are a 15- to 20-minute walk from the EU Commission's main offices. Big deal.

According to Mr Falzon, these premises were designed to house no more than 20 persons while the complement is now 50. If 800 square metres cater for 20 persons, how come we need five times more space to cater for 2.5 times the number of staff? Even these numbers do not gel.

Mr Falzon then goes on to quote the example of Malta House in London which, he says, was purchased by the government for Lm7.5 million in 1991 and is now estimated to be worth Lm9.5 million.

If my mathematical calculations are correct, this means that this particular "investment" appreciated over the past 13 years by an average of approximately two per cent per annum. Not a very good investment by any standard, I would think.

Richard Cachia Caruana who, according to the former Foreign Minister, was the main promoter behind the new premises, also makes an issue about the distance from the EU Commission and seems to base his recommendation in favour of purchasing the new Malta House largely on this consideration. He seems concerned about his staff having to trot backwards and forwards to the EU Commission losing valuable time especially during inclement weather!

The 16 properties identified by the "special" Mimcol committee were all within one kilometre radius of the main EU institutions, so it seems that very close proximity to the EU Commission was a prerequisite at the outset.

The mind boggles. Are we seriously expecting the Maltese people to believe that nobody thought of solving the proximity question by recommending the introduction of a couple of shuttle vans running continuously between Malta House and the EU Commission? This simple idea puts paid to the argument of having our embassy within spitting distance of the EU Commission and revives the question I asked about the need of having our premises on millionaire's row.

None of the two gentlemen, however, answers the main questions I raised in my open letter to the Prime Minister (July 24).

Why did Malta not consider purchasing a property more than one kilometre away from the EU Commission, thereby saving the country several million liri?

Do they both believe that after taking into account the state of our country's finances, it was still a wise and sensitive decision to invest Lm9 million in Dar Malta?

I am one of the many people who voted in favour of joining the EU and had high expectations from Malta's entry, but I am a believer in substance, not glitzy offices. No amount of spin will convince me and many thousands of taxpayers that our country's efforts to obtain all the benefits of EU membership would have been harmed by having Dar Malta in a less exclusive area of Brussels.

What exactly is sprouting in Brussels?