Opposition leader Simon Busuttil yesterday laid down steps he would be taking as a member of the monitoring board of the Individual Investor Programme (IIP), emphasising that anyone granted a passport without having lived in Malta for 12 months would not be recognised as a Maltese citizen.

Dr Busuttil was winding up a three-hour debate in Parliament on an Opposition motion for the repeal of the regulations governing the programme, arguing that they did not properly respect the agreement reached between the government and the European Commission.

The motion was defeated by 39 votes in favour and 30 votes against after a division.

Dr Busuttil called on the government-appointed chairman of the monitoring committee to call, with immediate effect, regular meetings so that the Opposition would know how the scheme was being administered.

The Opposition warned that all names and places of origin of those acquiring citizenship would be published. If the government failed to do so, these would be published by the Opposition.

He also called for the publication of the agreement entered into by the government with Henley and Partners, which he termed as “dubious”. The Opposition urged the House Public Accounts Committee to seek the publication of this contract and then scrutinise it.

Dr Busuttil said the scheme was a clear example of how things should not be done and hoped the government would learn a lesson. Until such time, the Opposition would continue to insist on the motion to revoke the legal notice.

Earlier, he said the Opposition still insisted there had to be a genuine link between applicants for citizenship and the country. The Opposition had wanted a substantial period of residence, perhaps five years. The government ignored the appeal.

Were it for the government, one would not even have needed to live in Malta for a day before acquiring citizenship. The Opposition had no alternative but to continue to press, even going to the European Parliament.

It was the European Parliament, which was the voice of the people, that had brought about a genuine link between applicants and the country. The Parliament was not something alien to Malta. It “belongs to us all”, Dr Busuttil said in reference to Labour’s election slogan.

The Opposition now expected that what had been agreed with the EU, including the 12 months of effective residence, should be respected.

Opposition Home Affairs spokesman Jason Azzopardi moved the motion, which said the regulations did not make specific reference to the clause in the agreement with the EU that applicants for citizenship must live in Malta “effectively” for a year.

Nor did the regulations specify that dependants of applicants, who would also receive Maltese passports, had to similarly live on the island for an effective period of one year.

Furthermore, the regulations empowered Henley and Partners to receive full payment for applications and to retain such funds for the duration of the due diligence period, which could last up to two years.

Introducing the debate, Deputy Opposition leader Mario de Marco said the government had ignored the Opposition in all stages of the debate on the Individual Investor Programme.

The government had only changed its attitude after noticing that criticism was not only being levelled by the Opposition but also by others. The government had accused the Opposition of not having national interests at heart when it criticised the scheme’s secrecy clause. The government did not even accept one amendment presented by the Opposition.

The Opposition did not seek to present a motion asking for the revocation of the Legal Notice. However, as the law stood, the Opposition could not but present an amendment to the Legal Notice. He hoped that the government would listen to the Opposition’s arguments.

The government and the European Commission had agreed that a person had to effectively reside in Malta for a period of one year before being granted the Maltese citizenship. However, the Legal Notice did not define residence. It also failed to refer to the test of effective residence.

The scheme should respect the integrity of Malta. It should reflect the norms of advanced countries and not of those which did not have a good reputation.

Parliamentary Secretary for Justice Owen Bonnici said that the Individual Investor Programme was aimed at creating a fund to finance projects that would improve people’s lives.

The European Commission told the government that the genuine link between the applicant and the country should be strengthened and therefore both parties agreed to insert a provision to the effect that for an applicant to be granted the Maltese citizenship, the individual must purchase a property of a certain value in Malta and reside in Malta for a period of one year.

Dr Bonnici said that Malta still retained the capping of the number of applicants at 1,800 while reserving the right to change that number.

The EC’s endorsement of the programme increased its competitiveness. This was in sharp contrast to the Opposition’s stance when it had insisted on a five year residency and direct large investments making the programme uncompetitive.

The leader of the Opposition had pronounced himself against the programme and wanted it scrapped. For this reason, the government could not take the Opposition seriously.

Foreign Minister George Vella said the PN was stretching the issue solely for partisan reasons. It was a disgrace that the PN had adopted the practices of old by speaking against the country abroad.

The controls which Malta was imposing on its citizenship scheme were more stringent than other countries, but the Opposition was failing to acknowledge this fact.

If the Opposition’s concerns about the acquisition of European citizenship were genuine, would it now object to the scheme in Cyprus, or a new scheme in Spain targeted at granting citizenship to some 350,000 Jews whose ancestors were exiled from the country in the 15th Century?

Dr Vella stressed he had nothing against Jews or Cyprus, but their schemes had far fewer controls than Malta’s did.

Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia said the people would judge this programme now and in the future when they benefited from the funds which it would yield. The funds would be used for innovation, hospitals, schools and other measures.

He said he was pleased to report that the flow of applications for the programme to the scheme was very satisfactory.

The Opposition, he said, had not wanted this programme at all costs and in talks with the government consistently moved the goalposts.

It was about time, Dr Mallia said, that the PN stopped scaremongering about everything. The tactic had not worked before the election and neither was it working now.

The Opposition should withdraw its motion and join the government in the success which the programme would have. Otherwise it would go down in history as having sought to destroy it.

Parliamentary Secretary Edward Zammit Lewis and Nationalist MPs Francis Zammit Dimech also contributed to the event.

A more detailed report on last night’s debate can be read at www.timesofmalta.com.