Prime Minister Joseph Muscat commented for the first time on the Panama Papers this evening, telling Parliament that his first priority is to ensure that the reputation of the financial services centre is maintained. 

He also said that the Panama Papers had confirmed what Konrad Mizzi had been saying, but investigations would continue and if any irregularity by Dr Mizzi and chief of staff Keith Schembri was revealed, if the millions mentioned by the Opposition were shown to exist, he would dismiss them immediately.

Dr Muscat also announced that the Maltese authorities would seek information from the International Consortium of Journalists and Panama itself about the companies from Malta mentioned in the Panama Papers. 

In a statement to the House, Dr Muscat said the leaks had serious implications to financial centres. Malta, he said, was not an offshore centre but it too felt the pressures which such leaks made.

His priority, he said, was to ensure that the financial services sector remained strong, and was strengthened further, amid perceptions that people who used financial instruments did so to evade tax.

My priority is to ensure that the financial services sector remains strong- Prime Minister

This was a national challenge which all should involve themselves in instead of playing political games. Malta, he said, would continue to hold the view that it should retain control over its taxation policy, despite the new pressures which cases such as this created.

He noted that more than 600 companies from Malta were mentioned in the Panama Papers. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue would be seeking information from Panama and the International Consortium of Journalists about the Maltese people involved. Their involvement did not mean they were breaking the law, but investigations would be held.

Minister Konrad Mizzi was mentioned in the Papers but the information given showed that he had been saying the truth, Dr Muscat said.

Nonetheless, the investigations launched by the Tax Commissioner would continue. An independent audit was also being made to ascertain what, if any funds were in the Panama company.

The same was being done with regards to his chief of staff Keith Schembri. In both cases, the Papers did not mention any deposits, in contrast to other people.

However if it resulted that they had not been telling the truth and funds had been deposited, both Dr Mizzi and Mr Schembri would be removed from their posts immediately.

As in the past, he would decide once investigations were completed, Dr Muscat said,

But he would not allow this case to detract from the achievements of this government. 

Opposition leader Simon Busuttil said the prime minister's statement was surreal and shameful.

He was no longer believed when he spoke on transparency. He had known for seven weeks about the secret companies and done nothing about them, undermining the country's reputation. 

There had been lies throughout these weeks to hide what had been going on. For example, how could anyone believe that Dr Mizzi only had €92 in his company?

Now it had been revealed that Dr Mizzi  tried to open bank accounts in Dubai and Panama. Dr Mizzi had said he wanted to deposit funds from brokerage. What sort of brokerage could a minister do if this was not corruption? 

Replying, Dr Muscat said Dr Busuttil should ask his colleagues and former ministers how they made money from brokerage.

He reiterated that Dr Mizzi and Mr Schembri would be dismissed if any irregularity was revealed and they had not been telling the truth.

Interjecting, Dr Busuttil said the fact that they had opened secret companies was enough for them to be sacked.

Interjecting, Dr Mizzi said the Panama Papers confirmed the information he had previously given. It had been confirmed that his was a family trust and New Zealand was an OECD country obliged to give information to the tax authorities.

He said his company never traded and had no money. The mention of brokerage was standard wording in the trust and not put there by himself. The purpose of the trust was estate management for his family.

He insisted he never opened a bank account or filled an application for a bank account, although a bank account would have been needed had he disposed of his property which, he stressed, was not under a loan.

He said he was sure he would be vindicated in the audit currently under way.