Labour's shadow finance minister has had another article written. This time, an attempt was made at disproving my accusation that his party's lack of knowledge about EU funding is frightening. Unfortunately, the contrary effect was achieved and Charles Mangion demonstrated once more that Labour (PL) has still not understood the basic principles of EU funding.
Dr Mangion wrote: "Labour was well aware that advance payments were made by the Commission to EU member states". It follows, therefore, that if the payments were made, then they were received - by Malta. Yet, despite this, Dr Mangion revisited his original claim that "the revenue classified as an inflow to the Central Bank... is not recognised by the European Commission as revenue for the government" and continued to insist upon it.
The European Commission considers advance payments to be payments to the member state. That much was confirmed by the Commission itself, as quoted in this newspaper. The fundamental error that the shadow finance minister makes is in confusing EU rules with the internal procedures of Malta's Ministry of Finance.
At the risk of boring readers, but bearing in mind how important it is to ensure that the opposition is properly briefed about such crucial matters, I will repeat the information that these advance payments are an important part of the EU Financial Perspectives 2007-2013. They guarantee the receipt of substantial EU funds in the first years of the programming period, allowing member states the necessary liquidity to kick-start projects. The advance payments also add flexibility to the de-commitment rule: the Commission deems them part of the allocation under 2007, which the member state is expected to spend by the end of 2010.
Dr Mangion accuses me of having "completely shirked from answering" what appears to have been a question about "the funds that flowed in the Central Bank" and which "were not utilised by the government". His view is that "if such funds were truly accessible to the government it would be sheer irresponsibility on its part to keep them lying idle rather than utilise them to carry out many of the much-needed infrastructural, environmental and other projects".
Dr Mangion forgets, perhaps conveniently, his own confident assertion, made just a few lines earlier, that Labour is "well aware ... that funds allocated for a particular year still remain available for a number of years after the allocation date" and that it is also "well aware that it takes time to identify and implement projects". Clearly, it is one thing to be well aware but another thing altogether to be well informed.
Before an EU co-financed project can be implemented, a member state must reach agreement with the European Commission on a strategy to be financed by the EU. This is not an option but obligatory. Malta was the first member state among all 27 to reach this agreement, back in December 2006.
Malta was also among the first member states to receive Commission approval, in June 2007, for operational programmes, which set out the priorities and structures required for the utilisation of funds.
Once these programmes were in place, the Maltese government, through a strict selection process, identified the projects that are to be implemented as soon as the necessary permits are issued and the tendering procedures have been carried out. It is only when these procedures are concluded that projects may begin and advance payments utilised. I imagine that the shadow finance minister is not suggesting to the Prime Minister that he do away with public procurement rules, environmental permits and other requirements of the law so as to consume the funds as hastily as possible.
It may be of some comfort to Dr Mangion to know that Malta has been identified by the European Commission as one of the top member states in the management and absorption of EU Structural Funds allocated for the period 2004-2006.
There is another point that bears repeating: Malta was a net recipient in 2004-2006 and, on the basis of past and present trends, it will be a net recipient in 2007-2013. To spell it out further, Malta has been a net recipient every year, even in 2007 and 2008, when the projects were being identified.
Dr Mangion accused me of having the "ardour" to criticise Labour for monitoring "on an annual and monthly basis" Malta's EU-funding progress. I must confess that I could not see where ardour came into it, until I realised that Dr Mangion had in mind the Maltese ardir, for arrogance or cheek. At the risk of being accused once more of ardour, I must point out that failing to set the record straight would have been a dereliction of my duty towards what is now fashionably called "the people", who are being misinformed.
The shadow finance minister finds this offensive and describes it as my "frightening desire of stifling accountability with respect to EU funding".
I wish to reassure him that I would be delighted if Labour were to shift from monitoring the EU funding situation from "an annual and monthly basis" to a daily or, perhaps, even hourly one. I take issue not with monitoring but with misinformation and untruths.
Mr Cachia Caruana is Permanent Representative of Malta to the European Union.