MP warns of corruption in regulatory authorities

Labour MP José Herrera said yesterday that corruption in some of Malta's regulatory authorities risked undermining Malta's credibility in the services sector.

Speaking in Parliament, during the debate on a Bill to amend the Financial Institutions Act, Dr Herrera said the opposition agreed with the Bill and it had a history of backing the government on financial legislation.

But he was concerned how some regulatory authorities were in crisis.

The first was the transport authority, where it resulted that there was institutional corruption with hundreds of people having paid extra to receive licences. Furthermore, some people who paid bribes to receive licences were never asked to surrender them.

He had also spoken in the past how senior officials of the Maritime Authority had been involved in the adjudication of tenders when they had a direct interest.

Now a more blatant case of institutional corruption at the MMA was being revealed. A few years ago it was decided that all those who sailed a boat or speedboat needed a licence. What had happened was that hundreds of people with vast boating experience but a poor academic background had failed because they could not study the books.

Somebody responsible for these exams then realised that many people were failing the exams and institutional corruption developed at the MMA, with hundreds of people over a period of four years paying some Lm180 or Lm190 to be given a licence. Such corruption was unacceptable and whoever was responsible needed to be removed immediately. And, Dr Herrera said, he feared that yet another case was looming, involving ship registration. Much used to be said about Malta not registering old ships and not serving as a flag of convenience.

As a result, ships which were over 25 years old were not admitted on the Maltese shipping register. Yet, behind the scenes, people who had an interest and who possibly, or probably, had been paid, had quietly changed the rules and such ships were now finding themselves back on the Maltese register.

Dr Herrera said such goings on needed to be nibbed in the bud before they caused irreparable harm to Malta's reputation.

Maritime activities were extremely important for Malta, and God forbid that this cancer also spread to financial services.

Proper and quick action was needed, and he also expected the responsible minister to assume his responsibilities. Not to know about these things when everybody was talking about them spoke volumes.

Parliamentary Secretary Edwin Vassallo said he wanted to show his disappoval to what Dr Herrera had said (about corruption) and he wanted to warn reporters how they reported his speech. What Dr Herrera had said was aimed at smearing a minister and an authority and also harming Malta's economic stability. Dr Herrera had spoken like a lawyer, instilling doubts where none existed, and he should repeat his comments outside the House.

When one knew that corrective action was being taken, one did not speak in this way in the House to rub salt into the wound. If Dr Herrera was speaking about something different, he should withdraw his comments and admit he did not understand what he was speaking about. But if he stood by his comments, he should repeat them outside the House. In this way, if there was wrongdoing, corrective action would be taken, but if there was not, Dr Herrera would account for his actions. Otherwise, Mr Vassallo said, he would say there was malice.

Intervening, Dr Herrera said that what he had said about the transport authority had been proved in court. As for his comments on the MMA, he would repeat his comments outside the House at the appropriate time.

Mr Vassallo said that if Dr Herrera had any evidence, he should repeat his comments outside the House immediately. Otherwise he was a coward. In not speaking out now he was showing he did not have evidence. Therefore, what was the purpose for his comments in the House?

Comments about the Bill will be reported tomorrow.