I refer to Caroline Muscat's article entitled 'Questions over legitimacy of €1.2 million fund contributions' where reference was made to the beneficiaries of the Good Causes Fund (GCF) last year.
It is news to me that the Finance Minister and I are "at loggerheads over which organisations should receive the benefits". I was taken by surprise by the article's revelations that the GCF has benefited a number of non-enrolled voluntary organisations (VO). Only 25 of the 91 organisations that benefited from the fund are enrolled VOs in fact.
The Sunday Times journalist appears to have acquired her information from a parliamentary question I was not aware of. The list of beneficiaries for 2008 was published by the Department of Information (DOI) in September of that year (No. 1236). This year, the DOI did not do the same and it appears nowhere in the press either. The ministry website only names a number of football clubs as beneficiaries. This is not a sign of progress in the government's stated commitment to accountability and transparency in its transactions with the VO sector.
On November 17, 2008, I wrote to the minister complaining that only one of the 10 beneficiaries on the 2008 list was an enrolled organisation and drawing his attention to the law. The minister replied on January 14, 2009, with a detailed letter arguing the legal points including reference to Article 50(7) of Chapter 438 of the Lotteries and Other Games Act quoted by the Ministry spokesman referred to in Ms Muscat's article, which, he said, "empowers the minister to grant a benefit 'without any further appropriation other than this Act'."
In his letter the minister also said: "I am recommending to the Advisory Board to work closer with the Commissioner in the future with the (aim) of achieving more co-ordination between the departments concerned". What I can say in this regard is that his 'recommendation' has been flatly ignored - it seems the board understood the contrary. The sub-section on 'beneficiaries', in its Guidelines for the Approval of Projects for 2009, however, stated that "The fund supports projects and initiatives proposed by individuals, NGOs registered under the Commission of Voluntary Organisations Act of 2007, sports organisations registered with the Kunsill Malti għall-iSport ..." So, I do not know how to explain this flagrant inconsistency.
On February 25, 2009, I replied to the minister congratulating the ministry for its "positive step" when it "stipulated that beneficiaries of the fund must be enrolled under the Voluntary Organisations Act of 2007". I also forwarded my full legal advice whereby I informed him, with reference to Article 50(7), that it is irrelevant to the matter and that "The Voluntary Organisation Act was a later law and so, unless otherwise stated, implicitly amends earlier law as necessary".
It was also pointed out that the Voluntary Organisations Act was a statement of government policy and that "any policy on the fund undermining such a policy direction would be dangerous in principle because it would be permitting a non-transparent entity from benefiting from public funding - something the government wanted to eliminate through the Voluntary Organisations Act".
A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since these words were written, putting big question marks on the government commitment to the transparency referred to in the statement. Since then I have wasted time wrestling with one government ministry or entity after the other, including the Office of the Prime Minister, trying to get them to respect the law.
In this particular instance, like the others, the Ministry of Finance should not be seeking extenuating reasons for getting round a law intended to ensure transparency in the public interest, it should helping me enforce it.
The public interest extends to the right to know where its money is going and how it is spent.