With the suspension of EU youth exchange funds, Education Minister DOLORES CRISTINA has faced the worst storm of her political career. She insists there is nothing she could have done differently.
The sudden suspension of educational funds for the local European Union Programmes Agency (EUPA) has alienated a large number of students who have traditionally been a group that supports the Nationalist Party. What sort of damage do you think this has done?
At present, the students are not very pleased with what has happened and I don't doubt many of them are not happy with me as Education Minister and possibly with the government, because it's a matter of collective responsibility.
But I firmly believe this is one issue. We have given them a future in the EU and many of them will be able to postpone their programme, so they will still have the opportunity to go abroad as planned.
I can understand that right now they are not very pleased but they do understand that they have other opportunities. It isn't as though this is the only issue connected with the EU and the government.
Do you feel the whole issue has damaged your personal career?
The past few weeks have probably been the worst of my political life and, ironically enough, back in March I told my family that I have been a frontbencher for seven years, six of those as a minister, and it's been a pretty easy ride. Now we've had this storm.
When I said I regretted what happened, it wasn't a case of apologising for the sake of apologising but because there are young people involved... And I form part of the government that has worked very hard for a number of years against the odds to actually bring these opportunities to our young people.
So, of course, when the letter of suspension arrived on May 7, telling us that funds for the Life Long Learning Programme and the Youth in Action Programmes would be suspended, it was probably the worst moment of my political career.
Has it impinged on your prospects of re-election?
Undoubtedly, it will have an effect, especially the way it has been spun by the Labour opposition and its media. It will have an effect but... I think people believe in my integrity and my credibility, so on a personal basis I wouldn't be able to tell you... I would be very presumptuous if I had to tell you...
My regret at what has happened is sincere and I am also doing my best to curtail the negative effect... the meeting with the European Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou (last) week and the outcome which will see students on the Youth in Action Programme (numbering about 200 to 250) go ahead with their plans is a case in point. Had I had the opportunity to intervene earlier, this situation might have been avoided.
The Labour Party and even some students and commentators have called for your resignation. What's your reaction?
I have done a lot of soul searching in the past weeks on my own and with people from my secretariat who knew exactly what happened and, frankly, I cannot find anything anywhere that I could have done differently.
Had I been aware that we were moving towards, let me call it a crisis situation, I would have acted immediately. As everyone knows, my son is part of the staff at the EUPA... now consider me as the mother of someone who is in an agency where there is a possibly explosive situation. I think by sheer instinct what one would have done would have been to make sure that any problems would be solved - if for no other reason to make sure that one's son is not targeted, because he is in a very vulnerable position.
The point is, had I known, for different reasons, one of them being specifically that my son is part of this agency, I would have taken immediate action.
But that argument can be turned on its head... in the sense that given that your son is part of the agency, is it possible that you never discussed the problems at the EUPA, even informally?
Yes, but what you and others are saying, again, follows the perception created by the Labour media...
Which is?
Which is that you would think my son was at a level where he knew what was happening. When my son comes home, he discusses his job like anybody else, but what he used to complain about is the volume of work and the fact that they were understaffed and the fact that their financial unit had a heavy turnover of employees.
So basically you can turn the argument whichever way you want. But I insist, had I known where we were heading I would have acted immediately, first of all to avoid the issue on a national basis and secondly, and definitively, to make sure my son would not become the target that he has become. I am the political figure and I am prepared to take the flak but the way Alessandro, his fiancée and her family have been targeted in a spin of lies and inaccuracies is unacceptable.
Your son was employed before you became Education Minister...
In 2002 I believe, I was a backbencher. I am not going justify my son's employment.
Fair enough, but the way you just spoke of that relationship, in the sense that had you known that the department your son worked in could be in trouble, you would have had more reason to act...
I think it's logical.
But do you think that relationship is problematic?
Well, obviously, it has caused problems but I never suspected that it would. I mean, Alessandro is a meticulous person, to the point that at home we joke that he is almost obsessive. So I always felt very safe with him working there. When I became minister, I pointed this out to the Prime Minister and it is no secret: there have been photographs and we have been on TV together.
You were talking about the soul searching. Did you have this kind of discussion with the Prime Minister?
I told the Prime Minister that I didn't know anything about it (the fact that the European Commission had threatened to suspend Malta's funds) because I felt that I owed him an explanation and he said he was happy with that.
I must admit I am very confident in my credibility. I don't go around saying things I don't believe, but I also see that the opposition's attack on me is an attack on my credibility that goes beyond the EUPA programmes.
Don't forget I was one of four Nationalist MPs who heard Justyne Caruana vote 'no' on the Delimara issue. I know what I heard, I stand by what I heard and what I said publicly, so basically this is a sort of double-whammy when it comes to my credibility.
The government's reaction to calls for resignation was that there was no need, since the board which looked into the EUPA fiasco said the matter was not raised at political level. But the board's report mostly criticises the fact that the three officials found responsible within your ministry did not alert the EU representation in Brussels - not yourself.
It says the matter was not raised at a political level, I am the political level.
But in November 2009, you took part in a meeting which discussed the fact that the Commission had rejected a review of the EUPA, and its long standing concerns with the management of funds locally.
I was present at that meeting which was called by the Cabinet Secretary. That meeting focused very much on the audit report...
...which flagged the problems raised by the Commission.
It flagged the problem but in no way did it give an inkling that there would be a suspension.
Perhaps not, but that meeting must have discussed the fact that the audit report submitted to the European Commission was rejected.
Yes, and we were told we had to send another audit and I was given assurance that matters would be on track. The ministerial direction was to make sure that we would be compliant with what we are being asked to deliver and I was repeatedly told that things were on track. Even at that meeting it was said that some of the measures required were being implemented and that others were in the process of being implemented. Nowhere in that meeting... was the matter escalated to a crisis point.
So were you being misled?
I was not being fully informed. The people who were responsible, the national coordinator, the authority and the permanent secretary, were genuinely of the opinion that we were on track to go beyond any problems.
But at that stage the European Commission had already pointed out, countless times, that it had serious problems with the situation in Malta...
Yes, but this was in correspondence which never reached my desk.
But what I'm querying here is, they either flagged these longstanding concerns during that meeting to you or else they misled you.
No, what I think happened was something which the European Commissioner sort of explained. The people involved felt they would be able to cope with what was required of us. They felt they had the capacity and the ability. But I have to say this, they genuinely believed it.
The report says at one point that time was wasted between September 2009 and March 2010. You had been aware of what was going on since November 2009. Do you feel you helped to make sure time was not wasted?
Well, I always gave instructions to move and make sure we did not have any problems. That was my ministerial direction.
But, again I refer to the report, when it says that alarm bells should have started ringing through the system the minute the Commission said it had a problem with the review. At that November meeting you were aware of this problem, so don't you feel that this line in the report applies to you as well?
No, because... during that meeting several people had queries about the report. They (the officials) were saying these recommendations have been implemented, they are in the process of being implemented... so what was actually agreed then was a pragmatic way forward.
The ministerial direction and the direction of the Cabinet Secretary was to move forward as necessary to make sure we are compliant with the Commission.
Looking back, in hindsight, did you follow up the issue aggressively enough?
I was not required to be aggressive or otherwise. I asked for information, I was given the information and the information I was given was pretty reassuring.
Yes, but you have a reputation for keeping tight control of your ministry.
Hands on....
How could something like this have escaped this style of management?
Basically because we felt that other people were following it and following it thoroughly. You are hands on with everything but you are not in the implementation process so basically we oversee many issues and make sure they are being followed. In this case I was under the impression it was being followed.
So, in this lapse of time between November and April, how did you follow up this meeting?
Every time we asked, we were told that matters were in hand, recommendations were being implemented... there was a plan of action... and basically that was it... However, I have to say something on behalf of the three people who are no longer part of my ministry (they resigned after the board that looked into the suspension of funds found their position to be untenable) because I feel it would be amiss not to.
The board of inquiry focused on a May 2009 to a May 2010 period and focused specifically on the issue at hand. But we had three people who worked very hard while they were in power. I'm saying this because their careers should not be judged on this one-year period. And we tend to forget the problem we have with structures... whereas a national authority in other countries is a unit on its own, we have a very small national authority and I think I have to say this because the whole system itself has not been without fault.
Wouldn't you say that it is your responsibility to make sure there is a system in place that can work?
Well, yes, but let me tell you something: we worked, and they (the three people) worked within the limitations, and they believed they were delivering, but bringing in new people is not an easy task because it is not easy to find the right people.
Going back to the report, beyond the warnings that came when the matter escalated after August 2009, there were audit reports of the EUPA for 2007, 2008 and 2009 which consistently highlighted the problems that eventually came to a head in May this year. You must have been aware of all these reports?
No, these reports don't come to the minister.
They don't reach the minister?
No, these reports go to different levels but they never reached me. You are making a serious mistake if you think that every report in the ministry lands on my desk.
Of course not, but these are audit reports issued once a year for an agency under your command.
Yes, but I have got many agencies... the reports were never brought to my attention, not even when we had a change in permanent secretary did anyone warn me or the permanent secretary that there was a problem with the EUPA.
This is not a question of every report landing on your desk, that would definitely not be practical. But here you have an audit, giving you a yearly health status of an agency. One would expect the minister to be aware of the contents of that once a year audit.
Yes, possibly, especially if there is a problem.
And in this case there were problems, flagged in three consecutive reports.
They were never flagged (to me).
But it's your responsibility to see that you are receiving such documents.
No, I don't think so. I'm sorry, there is responsibility that moves from the bottom upwards. I don't think you can expect a minister to ask for every report that comes in but I do expect people at different levels of responsibility to move problems upwards. In this case it didn't happen.
If you were a minister in another country do you think you would have resigned?
Not necessarily, no. Had it been something personal...
So it's not a flat no.
Well, it's not a flat no because I have seen ministers in other countries who I probably thought should have resigned and they didn't because it always depends on the circumstances, either through omission or commission for the situation we are in. But as I said, I don't believe I could have done anything differently. And I think even this meeting with the European Commissioner proved it because once it came to a ministerial-commissioner level, then certain issues were settled.
Watch excerpts of the interview on www.timesofmalta.com