Yesterday evening’s meeting of the House Standing Committee for European and Foreign Affairs, which convened to continue grilling Malta’s Permanent Representative to the EU Richard Cachia Caruana in line with the opposition’s pending motion of censure in his regard, was a rather heated one at times.

The important thing was not what was written but what people read into them

It was frequently interspersed by committee chairman Francis Zammit Dimech (PN) calling on opposition MP Leo Brincat to put questions that were pertinent to the motion, “without long preambles to each one as if he were speaking in a plenary session of the House”. As it was, he was “breaking every fundamental rule of questioning”.

At one point in time Dr Zammit Dimech accused Mr Brincat of resorting to character assassination of Mr Cachia Caruana, who needed to be protected. Mr Brincat and his PL colleagues – George Vella, Luciano Busuttil and Owen Bonnici – protested loudly at this. Mr Brincat in turn accused Dr Zammit Dimech of discrimination and censoring his rights to put questions.

Referring to interruptions by Foreign Minister Tonio Borg, Mr Brincat said it was becoming obvious that the committee had two participating chairmen.

In another instance Mr Cachia Caruana told Mr Brincat that if he believed the questions he was putting to him, and if he ever became Malta’s Minister for EU Affairs, Malta would have a disaster in Europe. “That’s what you say,” Mr Brincat retorted.

Towards the end of the sitting, Mr Cachia Caruana said he was prepared to relinquish his tenure as Ambassador to the EU, but while he still held the position he regularly had to take positions on various issues. He had never taken any, with any foreign government representative, without full consultation with the Prime Minister.

Mr Brincat repeatedly asked Mr Cachia Caruana about his attendance of Cabinet meetings, his line of reporting to the Foreign Minister or the Prime Minister, his remuneration and if any backdated additional payments had ever been made to him. Dr Borg and Dr Zammit Dimech said these last questions were irrelevant to the motion at hand.

Regarding what Wikileaks had reported about a meeting with US representatives in early November 2004, Mr Cachia Caruana said he was not ready to take responsibility for whatever people who had not attended the meeting had assumed or interpreted. The meeting had been held on November 9, the Prime Minister had advised the Cabinet on the 12th, and by the 14th the Cabinet had agreed to his proposals.

At no time had he had any guidance from Washington. If anything, the Americans at times gave conflicting messages at their meetings.

Asked why he had not sought to have the Wikileaks information queried or clarified, Mr Cachia Caruana said he had done what any level-headed Maltese would do: he simply ignored it. In such cases the important thing was not what was written in the supposed leaks but what people read into them.

Had Mr Cachia Caruana ever considered the possibility that the Cabinet might not have agreed with his proposals? It was unacceptable to tell foreign government representatives what one would be proposing to one’s government even before it had officially been approved.

He replied that he always kept the Prime Minister informed all the way.

The committee is to meet again on Tuesday, June 12.