Government and Opposition MPs clashed over the nature of questions put to Malta's permanent representative to the EU, Richard Cachia Caruana, when the ambassador continued to be questioned by the Foreign Affairs Committee this evening as part of its debate on an opposition censure motion.
The motion claims that Mr Cachia Caruana held meetings with the representatives of other countries in November 2004 and discussed how Malta could rejoin Partnership for Peace, behind parliament's back. The government denies the claims and says Mr Cachia Carauna had only been discussing access to security documents.
Replying to questions by Foreign Minister Tonio Borg, Mr Cachia Carauna said Malta never signed a security agreement with Nato other than the security of documents agreement. His meetings in 2004 were only about security of documents. Russia and Switzerland, he said, were among the countries which had a security of documents agreement with Nato.
The government had no intention to take Malta back in PfP in 2004 after it was taken out in 1996 (by the Labour government).
When Malta rejoined PfP in 2008, no new security of documents agreement was needed and the one signed in 1995 (before Malta first joined PfP) was deemed adequate.
Mr Leo Brincat (PL) put a series of questions to Mr Cachia Caruana about his job description and whether he attends Cabinet meetings. Mr Cachia Caruana said he would provide his job description. He said he is also adviser to the prime minister and heads the inter-ministerial committee on EU affairs and attends Cabinet meetings.
Mr Brincat then asked whether other ambassadors attend Cabinet meetings. He also asked Mr Cachia Caruana about his salary.
Foreign Minister Borg and committee chairman Francis Zammit Dimech said such questions were completely irrelevant to the motion before the House.
Mr Cachia Caruana said the EU was different from, say, the UN and his work as representative was different. His salary, he said, was scale 1 plus 10% as already revealed in a parliamentary question.
Mr Brincat then requested a copy of Mr Cachia Caruana's contract of service.
Dr Borg insisted this was irrelevant to the motion - which was about talks held with the representatives of other countries and acting behind parliament's back.
Mr Brincat said taxpayers' money was involved.
Dr Borg said such questioning was still irrelevant.
Mr Brincat protested that he was being censored and his rights were being denied. Dr Zammit Dimech said this was an attempt at character assassination and the chair was protecting the witness. He insisted questioning had to be relevant.
Mr Brincat rejected the character assassination charge and said he wanted to see if Mr Cachia Caruana had received backdated emoluments. He also wanted to find out if people's perceptions about Mr Cachia Caruana were correct.
Dr Zammit Dimech said the question was being disallowed because it was irrelevant to the motion.
"You are a very discriminating chairman," Mr Brincat said.
"I disagree with your attitude," Dr Zammit Dimech retorted, adding that the motion was not about Mr Cachia's working conditions or people's perceptions.
When questioning resumed, Mr Brincat asked why the ambassador had not kept the commitment of then Foreign Minister Michael Frendo that he would give briefings to the committee once every six months. So far only three meetings had been held. Furthermore, why had Mr Cachia Caruana not considered briefing the committee on his 2004 meetings and the security issues?
Mr Cachia Caruana said he attended when he was asked, this was an issue of coordination, and he accepted that there could have been more frequent meetings. However he respected the role of the foreign ministers, past and present and some questions should not be put to him.
Mr Cachia Caruana said he never avoided parliament or its committee, nor had any minister.
Dr Borg said it had already been declared by the prime minister that since no concrete proposals been made on resolving the security of documents issue, no need was seen to go before parliament.
Mr Brincat protested that it should be the ambassador who should answer.
Mr Cachia Caruana said he was not responsible for the government's interface with parliament.
Mr Brincat referred to the 2004 US cable leaked by Wikileaks. He asked Mr Cachia Caruana whether he ever felt the need to correct impressions which that document had created.
Mr Cachia Caruana said that like every other Maltese mentioned by Wikileaks, he ignored them. The problem often was not what was written but the twist that was given. He also ignored claims on MaltaToday.
Mr Brincat noted that the Wikileaks document said that Malta's ambassador to the EU 'will propose to Valletta that Malta should declare the PfP agreement to remain in force, even though the country did not participate.' This document was written by a foreigner, who thus knew what the ambassador would do, before the Maltese government.
Mr Cachia Caruana said that what he had told the Americans had already been tabled by the prime minister. He could not assume responsibility for what an American official, who was not present for the meeting, had written.
His own notes showed that what he had said at that meeting was that Malta did not see PfP membership as a solution to the security of documents issue, but he would consider a solution based on the existing Malta-Nato security of documents agreement, something which the Nato official present appeared to accept.
Mr Brincat asked Mr Cachia Caruana whether he had informed the Americans of this proposal before informing the Maltese government.
Mr Cachia Caruana noted that the prime minister had explained that the idea made by the Americans was not new. He had discussed it with the prime minister before the November 2004 meetings.
Mr Brincat said the Wikileaks document also said that 'he was in fact advocating such a proposal to Malta'.
Mr Cachia Caruana said that showed how the issue had already been discussed in Malta. He had been acting within the parameters already set by the prime minister. In every meeting he attended in the EU and elsewhere, he acted on the basis of written instructions. In this case, Malta had argued that, possibly, the existing security of documents agreement could be used to settle the issue of access to security documents. Then the Americans themselves mentioned this possibility. Later, not for the first time, the Americans gave a different message.
"If you believe the questions you are making, and if you ever become minister for European affairs, we will have a disaster in Europe," Mr Cachia Caruana told Mr Brincat.
The important thing was that in his talks with the Americans the talk was within the parameters of what was previously agreed in Malta, he continued. If the Americans thought that a new proposal was being made, that was up to them. He was not responsible for what the Americans thought.
Mr Brincat said the worrying fact was that the Americans formed the impression that he had told them in advance what he was suggesting that the Maltese government should do. The dates on the documents showed that the proposal had not been made to the Maltese government.
Mr Cachia Caruana insisted that these meetings had been preceded with a discussion with the prime minister. Furthermore, every permanent representative in the EU took positions such as this. The bottom line for him as ambassador was what his government thought.
He never took any position with a foreign government without having first had the blessing of the Maltese government, Mr Cachia Caruana said.