Justice Minister Owen Bonnici insisted before the Public Accounts Committee this evening that he could not give explanations about blacked-out clauses of the government's agreement with Henley and Partners on the Citizenship by Investment Scheme. (the passport scheme)

He insisted that competition in this sector was stiff and giving any millimeter of information would be handing an advantage to competitors on a plate.

Committee chairman Tonio Fenech argued that the minister could explain why the clauses had been blacked out, without divulging commercial matters. The government, he said, was not being transparent.

Dr Bonnici denied the claim but insisted that competitiveness had to be guarded.

Mario de Marco asked if, in the contract, Henley and Partners were precluded from advising other governments in the same way as they had advised the Maltese government. That clause, he said, did not appear to exist in the contract. Therefore there were no grounds for the government to withhold information on the basis of competition.

Dr Bonnici said he could not reply and that question should be asked to representatives of Identity Malta.  However, were it for Henley and Partners more clauses would have been blacked out.

Fourteen clauses have been blacked out of more than 206.

Mr Fenech said the committee should refer to the Speaker about the position.

Dr Bonnici stood by his position. The government had published what it could, he said, but he did not want to hand Malta's advantage to others on a silver plate.

The government members agreed with Dr Bonnici and argued that in terms of a former ruling by the Speaker, it was up to the committee to decide on its procedure.

Dr Bonnici called for a vote. The vote was 4-3 with the government members refusing to refer the issue to the Speaker.

When the committee moved to other clauses, Mr Fenech said he could not understand how one of the blacked out clauses was no longer applicable.

Dr Bonnici said it was an issue which the government had wanted to introduce, and revealing it would undermine competitiveness.

Dr de Marco asked whether this was something which had been excluded but the government still wanted to reintroduce.

Dr Bonnici said the government did not plan to change anything, but it did wish to give ideas to others.

During a discussion on the residence requirements of IIP applicants, Dr Bonnici said applicants had to have residence status and a genuine link with Malta. Applicants did not need to spend 365 days in Malta but one could not go to the other extreme of not ever coming here. However, the fact that they did not habitually reside in Malta did not mean that they would not attract investment and talent to Malta. 

Therefore Jonathan Cardona (IIP CEO) in comments he had given Bloomberg had been right in saying that one could not expect applicants to spend 356 days here.

Mr Cardona had told the business news agency:   “We expect an individual to be in Malta for a number of days; we don’t go into the specific number. If you’re asking me, are these people going to move here entirely, I would say, ‘Listen, let’s not fool ourselves."

Dr Bonnici refused to answer questions on performance targets for Henley and Partners other than to say that the targets were stringent.

Dr de Marco asked if Henley and partners would be paid from the government more than the 4% marketing and processing fee. Was there another fee?  Dr Bonnici said he could not say more. The issue was what would happen if Henley did not achieve their target.

He explained however that Henley could request a payment from applicants directly.

Explaining other points, Dr Bonnici said Henley had a right to be paid in exceptional cases where citizenship was granted but it was then refused or withdrawn by the government.

The minister also explained that the process of due diligence of applicants had four tiers, one of which was carried out independently by a specialised overseas company.