PM 'has a lot to answer for' on corruption

With just over a year to go at most until Alfred Sant faces an election, Vanessa Macdonald met him to discuss his strategy, and to find out whether the barrage of criticism over his "partnership policy" with the EU had affected his point of view.

Will the Labour Party boycott the referendum? Why is this option being considered? What would you be trying to achieve?

We haven't discussed anything about the referendum yet. Our position on the referendum will be discussed when the referendum is on the agenda.

Which means when the date is announced?

Sure.

A boycott would result in a low turnout for the referendum...

That is not what we are discussing at the moment as a party. What we are discussing within the party and with people is the outcome of the negotiations with the EU and what we are focusing on is the outcome of those negotiations.

We have always stated that the future is going to be determined not by a referendum but by the election. So within that context, what we are looking at for the next election are two programmes of government: a programme of government by the Nationalist Party based on EU membership and the programme of government by the Labour Party based on the partnership with the EU, and that is where the whole debate will be.

You say that you will be standing on a platform of partnership, and yet in an article you wrote recently, you mooted the idea of actually putting everything on hold for two years...

Isn't it clear that we have wasted so much time over the past years talking about the EU, and doing nothing about the economy? All the reforms that should have been carried out, the economic restructuring...

Couldn't the two be done in parallel?

Have they been done in parallel?

If you were in government wouldn't you also have to run the economy at the same time as your partnership?

The partnership is something that we discuss and work out. But in the meantime, we focus on the economy: on the reforms that have to be carried out, the social aspect, on the environment and on education. These are the real priorities.

These are being carried out, perhaps to comply with the EU acquis, but they are being carried out...

I disagree. There are lots of papers being worked through but nothing being done.

What about the huge amount of legislation that has been passed through?

Just read through it: is it being applied? Do people know what it is about? Does it have any impact, for example so far as the environment is concerned, the roads are concerned, so far as education is concerned, so far as industrial restructuring is concerned, so far as financial management is concerned?

Of course there has been a difference. A lot of regulatory bodies have been set up and as autonomous bodies they have more teeth to bite with...

Talk to the people on the ground, and you will see that there is a lot more paperwork but no real work being done. Ask them about the Malta Financial Services Centre, the Malta Development Corporation, the Central Bank, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Trade, the consumer organisation that has been set up. Lots of people getting fat salaries and nothing being done on the ground.

I suppose it would be pointless asking you what you would do if the referendum outcome is 'no' to EU membership.

We will discuss that when it happens.

The Convention on the Future of Europe has been underway for over six months. What were you trying to achieve by attending it, and do you feel that you are succeeding?

We are there because we were invited to be there. And so we went.

You are invited to a lot of things, including l-Istrina, but that doesn't mean that you go...

What has that got to do with it? This is something related to an international organisation in which Malta has a stake, whether it is in membership or partnership mode. So we go and we want to know how the EU will evolve. That is something that we have to know. So we go there; we understand what goes on, we make contacts and we also present what we want to do.

But do you feel that you have made a contribution?

Yes, of course. People there need to know that the EU cannot be a hegemonic structure, that it is not a question of having a "one-size-fits-all" structure for everybody. What fits for Germany does not fit for a small island like Malta.

But people have to understand that Malta has its own direction and needs to find a space in Europe that applies to it, and this is also true for other countries, other islands, other regions....

Which will also be true under the partnership policy.

Yes, but that is the whole point: we want people to understand in Brussels and elsewhere that what we are aiming for is not something anti-European, but pro-European depending on how you apply the European perspective.

That kind of contribution is constructive.

This is the fourth in a series of interviews I have done with you since the last election, and each time we go back to all the foreign visitors and their reaction to your partnership policy.

EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy said during an interview with The Sunday Times that it was important to analyse the two options which were available to Malta - not other options which were "desirable or imaginary".

This is a criticism so often levelled at your EU policy: that what you want is not necessarily what you can get.

Look, what do you want Lamy or (EU Commissioner) Verheugen to say? It is the Brussels perspective that they have to project, certainly not the Maltese one. And what they project is what they want us to achieve, but that is not in Malta's interest.

Like in the '70s, when we had to end the NATO base and the British military base, and people said it was going to be tough and it was going to be impossible, and you had European statesmen saying that it couldn't be done, it would be suicide.

Now they are saying the same thing... I can't blame them but they are defending their own patch. But their patch is not our patch.

The problem is that any agreement needs two sides and you are always insisting that you had an agreement in Luxembourg in 1998. But in fact, Robin Cook, then president of the EC-Malta Association council, said that the community had noted your view that the association agreement should be enlarged to provide the framework for future relations, but that a joint declaration would have to be adopted later. So your "agreement" is just an agreement to discuss a future agreement.

In Luxembourg, we got an agreement precisely on the way in which we were going to proceed. We were going to discuss and negotiate and finalise an arrangement between the EU and Malta which would lead to an agreement on an industrial free trade zone based on the association agreement, within the context of what we were saying should be done. So that was exactly what we wanted.

The joint declaration you are referring to does not lay out any framework saying that what you want is possible; in fact all it does is lay down a number of conditions for future cooperation.

You also insist that the free trade area would exclude agriculture, but Mr Cook said categorically that "such a free trade area should cover substantially all trade without excluding any sector. Agricultural trade should be progressively liberalised".

Of course, but we had discussed that with Commission officials and they agreed that their own agricultural production is not liberalised. In terms of World Trade Organisation agreements, we would have to have an agreement which covers those arrangements, and within the context of moving towards liberalisation, we would protect our patch as they protect their patch.

But you would still have to liberalise agriculture eventually under WTO rules.

Not true. Under the Marrakech Declaration of 1994, island states and small developed countries have a clause which allows them to maintain protection in order to develop while taking into account their vulnerability.

We now buy food at the cheapest international prices, and we would still be able to do so.

You often refer to the fact that once in the EU, you would have to adopt measures that are not suitable for a small country, but Mr Cook said that the relations you sought should also cover competition rules, state aid and state monopolies, among other things. There are many of the things you list as the disadvantages of being "in". It looks as though they would still apply under partnership...

The Luxembourg declaration is not saying that we would have to apply their competition laws. We would have ours and they would have theirs.

You are saying that the EU would fit into our mould.

I am saying that our rules would be something that belong to us, depend on us, are defined by us, in parallel with their rules, but they would not be their rules.

Like, for example, on ship repair. At the moment the shipbulding 'yard is doing work on a hull and has a guarantee from the Ministry of Finance. That is against EU rules and there is internal government correspondence saying that this should not be done because it is going to clash with EU rules. Under partnership, there would be no problem with that.

The European parliament has approved a resolution on women's health which includes the provision of abortions. It has been harshly criticised by the Maltese bishops and the government. What is your stand?

There is no stand that we need to take. We just need to know what is going on. On the one hand they tell us that the European parliament is important and on the other hand they tell us that the European Parliament is not important so we should just ignore it on this issue.

The question is that abortion is strictly speaking outside the EU remit, but within the EU they could put pressure on things outside their remit - which is what they are doing. When the whole package includes other things you are involved with besides abortion, then abortion can also come into it, indirectly. For example, they could say: if you want this and you want this, well, how about that...?

In fact the abortion issue was included with a lot of other things related to a woman's sexual health.

It could come in as part of a package on social policy, on fair trading policy.

The European Movement suggested a constitutional amendment to pre-empt it - would you agree to it?

That is a bit of fluff. We have a constitutional proviso on neutrality and on the repair of superpowers' ships, but does it work? We have a constitutional proviso on how people should or should not vote on the basis of residency. Is it applied? So it is just a bit of fluff to make people think that there is no problem.

So you don't feel that there is any need for it, or do you feel it would be pointless to introduce as it would not be enforced?

It is pointless and people would still find ways around it. The point is this: if you join the EU you have to accept that your systems are penetrated by the EU systems and it is pointless saying that the remit only extends so far. The package is so vast that other areas would be sucked into it.

One of your criticisms just a few minutes ago was that we have all the talk and paperwork and reports and authorities, but no action. Surely having these EU mechanisms would force us to take action, would impose some form of discipline on us?

Why?

Because there would be other people outside Malta, people who don't have such vested interests, who would be there to monitor that things are actually being done.

What happens is that after about five or six years, they start charging you fines. Is that what we want?

Fines are supposed to be a deterrent against breaking the law..

Are they? Most EU countries at the moment are in breach of EU regulations on certain things. And the fines pile up and pile up. In Malta's case, that would be disastrous, because the fines would pile up and we would have to increase taxes.

And who really cares? They want us in for one thing, because they want all Europe in. And they want us, at the margin, because they think it would be a good strategic position to occupy. That is all.

The prime minister said that you had agreed not to take a partisan stand on the scandal involving the alleged bribery of the chief justice and a judge. Yet, your recent articles in l-orizzont and The Times on August 28 seem to be trying to get political mileage out of the case.

I did not introduce political discussion on the matter till the two judges had resigned. But after that surely, we had to discuss the whole issue. How can you ignore the penetration of the drug industry in the whole state system? At least, until the whole thing had been sorted, there had to be some sort of bipartisan action, which there was. On the other hand, in their columns, in their press publications and their propaganda, the PN projected, during this supposedly bipartisan approach, the image that the government was so effective and incisive. And right across the board, on the Labour side, from Super One to myself, we did not say a word, in order not to polarise the issue. But now that the mess has been dealt with, we have to discuss it.

Having said that, a lot of the points that you are raising are aimed at the infiltration not so much of the judiciary, but of the political class. Are you insinuating that there is corruption in the political class and if so, how high up?

There is definitely penetration by the drug industry into the political/commercial matrix within which decisions are made. It is obvious.

I mean, look at (Brazilian drug trafficker) Quieroz, (escaped prisoner) Azzabi, the whole drug scam about an ex-minister's son, Ciro del Negro, ex-canvassers of ministers, and quite a number of tough guys... The whole question about Meinrad Calleja, Zeppi il-Hafi and then the attack on the prime minister's personal assistant...

And then the prime minister giving three pardons to one man and saying he had "some good and some not so good qualities". Come off it. It is not just one instance, not a coincidence. It is a piling up of stories.

So are you saying that the prime minister is corrupt?

What I am saying is that there are lots of instances, incidents, circumstances...

But if the prime minister defended Zeppi il-Hafi then by your argument, he would have to be corrupt himself.

I have said this quite often. The prime minister has a lot to answer for, definitely.

Do you think the PM prejudiced the trial of the two judges during his press conference?

I will not comment about that because it is in the judicial area, but I did say that I did not agree with the content of what he said. I agreed that he should call a press conference and tell people what was going on, but I disagreed with the content of what he said.

And when it came to presenting the impeachment motion, I made it clear that I would sign it only on the grounds that it referred to what was known publicly and not internally.

Had you been consulted about the appointment of Noel Arrigo and of Chief Justice Degaetano?

No.

Do you think you should have been...

No comment about that.

One of the important points to be raised is how the judiciary should be appointed. You have no comment on how the system could be improved?

The problem does not arise from there. The problem is not the appointment of the judiciary. The problem is how to protect society from the drug menace.

You assume that the drug industry has the money to cause the corruption?

Look how decisions are being taken. The friends-of-friends concept used to work at village level and now it works at national level, in the context of a "modernising" society, an open society which a number of people control with their money.

Secondly, the friends of friends network has been penetrated by the drugs people.

You have once again turned down the nomination made by the government for the electoral commission. Why?

In June last year, the PN agreed that the two parties should meet to discuss the technical issues emerging from dual citizenship and how you could control that residency requirements were being observed.

Secondly, the removal of embarkation cards created problems with verification of residence requirements. So until October, the two parties were meeting and they came out with draft changes to the law which the Nationalist Party submitted to the Attorney General.

By May this year there were no further developments. When we saw that they were dragging their feet, we presented our own draft bill in parliament and they then presented another draft which was not in line with what we wanted.

It circumvented all the points that we had raised... That came before parliament and was passed in July.

The point is that these people don't want to do a deal. The situation is exactly the same as it was in June last year. I had said then that I could not nominate people to a process that they could not control.

But there is nothing to indicate that the situation will change in the future, so you will continue to refuse to nominate members to the commission forever...

Forever? No, when we are in government, we are going to change this situation.

The former head of your media, Alfred Mifsud, wrote in two articles taking a different stand to yours: on VAT, saying that he would advocate retaining VAT, and that he thought the EU issue should be decided by a referendum. Do you feel that the comments were inappropriate?

He was the chairman until last year of Super One, but that is an organisation with a business approach. He was not in charge of media communications of the party. So he was speaking in his own personal capacity, which is within his right.

In so far as VAT is concerned, within the party we are still saying that we will decide in a formal context before the elections. Either we are going to say that we will scrap VAT, in which case we will say what alternative we will be introducing, or we will say that we will retain VAT and we will say what sort of form of VAT we will retain.

The impression was very much that he had had his knuckles rapped.

That is a very wrong assumption. It is not true.

What about his stand on the referendum, that the membership issue should be decided by a referendum?

What he said was that it should be decided by a referendum - after the next election. The point he made was that if the Nationalists win the next election, then they could go ahead and have the referendum.

Has he withdrawn his candidacy for the next election?

Of course not.

Has he been disciplined?

Of course not.

You recently wrote in The Malta Independent outlining your strategy should you get back into power. It was virtually a continuation of your policies in 1996-1998, down to naming the ministers who would carry on with their work. Is it wise to base your next election on policies which failed to win you a majority in 1998?

They did not fail to win us a majority. People probably decided on different criteria. What is becoming clear now is how good those policies were, and the latest evidence shows that what we were saying all along was justified. We need to go back to these policies, although softer at the edges than they were between 1996 and 1998, especially with regard to people who have Labour sympathies. Those policies will need to come true with an honest programme of restructuring, modernisation and of cutting down the rampant mismanagement.

After four years, why are these policies going to be enough to get you into government?

People have understood that what we said was true; it made sense. We were too much in a rush to say what we wanted to do, perhaps we rushed too much in doing certain things. But the urgency is there, and people are understanding that things cannot go on the way they are. They want change.

So change means going back to the policies you had.

Change means policies that will clearly introduce restructuring, modernisation, basing everything on transparency and a serious approach. This whole attitude of scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours has to stop. It has led to a few elite people getting fatter and fatter, with the rest of us hoping that things will not collapse on their head.

What is the biggest lesson you have learnt since losing the last election?

Be softer at the edges.