Education Minister Dolores Cristina yesterday survived a vote of no confidence related to the suspension of EU educational programmes, as all government MPs, as expected, voted against the opposition's motion.

Labour spokesman on education Evarist Bartolo who had presented the motion earlier this month, criticising the mismanagement and shortcomings within the Ministry of Education that led to the suspension.

The motion hinged on the decision by the European Commission to suspend EU educational exchange funds for Malta because of the failure of the local agency that handles the funds to address management problems which the Commission had been flagging for at least three years.

The suspension affected about 600 students who were preparing to organise projects or follow study programmes abroad but the government recently announced an alternative exchange programme funded locally that could cost taxpayers as much as €500,000.

An inquiry report into the matter had blamed three government officials working with the funds agency and the Education Ministry but many felt that the Minister should also have stepped down.

In fact, Mrs Cristina's leadership style came under fire from Labour MPs during a three-hour parliamentary debate during which both Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat made short contributions.

Dr Muscat said that although he was happy that students were being given solutions, the mistakes in Mrs Cristina's ministry were costing the taxpayer €500,000.

On the other hand, Dr Gonzi said the funds were suspended, not lost, and the government was working to recover them. But sacrifices had to be made so young people would not be affected negatively.

He also promised radical decisions on a revision of the structures and operations of national authorities which administered EU funds.

Mrs Cristina defended herself by saying the criticism levelled at her, her family and third parties over the past weeks lacked ethics and political honesty.

She said she was not bound to her political seat and was not in politics to lose her soul, but stressed that she could not have done anything differently, pointing out that she had only been informed about the suspension last May.

Mrs Cristina noted that neither the auditors' not the Commission's reports gave any indication of fraud, as had been intimated in certain media.

The inquiry board, she said, had clearly noted that there had not been any intent by any official to act irresponsibly or against the interests of the positions they held.

She condemned the Labour media for having pointed fingers at her son, Alessandro - one of EUPA's managers - his fiancée and her family, in the corruption spin. What had been said was simply not true.

Mrs Cristina said radical reforms were making a silent revolution in education. She said she could be criticised for not yet introducing the higher education legislation, which was complex and sensitive. But she emphasised she would not move before she ensured that the Bill the best for the country.

Concluding, she said action had been taken so that affected students could still follow the courses they wanted.

Meanwhile, Mr Bartolo pointed out that the issue would not have even been debated had it not been for Labour's motion.

He said Mrs Cristina's style of leadership was all about micro management and yet she claimed she did not know what was going on.

He criticised the government for saying that things had been exaggerated, with Dr Gonzi almost saying the EU programmes had been suspended because of the Opposition.

Mr Bartolo said the contention that Mrs Cristina was the worst Education Minister in 20 years had not been uttered loosely. Her leadership had led to huge administration problems in the education sector and would soon affect other areas.

If someone called her personal attention to anything she did not want to discuss, they could be dropped from their post. In spite of her regular meetings with the permanent secretary to discuss outstanding issues, she said she only got to know about the situation on May 3 when dossiers had been around since March 2008.

There were a number of things to put right in the national authority, including its members' attitude that had disgusted people to the point of reporting to the European authority.

Why had nobody tried to see why Malta had the least number of students in the Erasmus programme? What was stopping more Maltese students studying at more foreign universities? Should not somebody ask why some university courses were seeing drop-outs of 50 or 60 per cent?

The impression that all was well was not being spun only by Mrs Cristina but by the whole government. This was why it hired supposedly journalistic companies to help it control the media with PR. Could such companies ever be expected to bite the hand that fed them?

The problem of what was happening with the EU funds had been confirmed as long ago as August 2009 but no steps had been taken. The situation could have been remedied even up to the last minute, not just November 2009. It was unbelievable no red light had started to shine since 2007.

Earlier, introducing the motion, MP Owen Bonnici said the grave mismanagement in the EU programmes meant that many young people and societies were to lose such an important opportunity and the taxpayer was going to be burdened with half a million euro for a new method of student exchanges between universities that was not as efficient as the EU programmes.

Through its incompetence, the government was not giving what had been promised out of EU membership.

Dr Bonnici said it was unprofessional that only civil servants had carried the burden in this case and the Minister had quickly washed her hands. The political responsibility had to be taken whether Minister Cristina knew what was going on or not.

Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg said the Opposition's argument did not make sense because there was a great difference between a minister guilty of breaking the law or ethics and a minister who was responsible for something done by employees under his portfolio.

The European Commission had said these were administrative mistakes, not abuses, corruption or fraudulent actions. These affected the administration of €11,000 out of €4.4 million worth of benefits through these programmes. The EC had very favourable comments on other programmes, including Leonardo da Vinci, Comenius and Grundtvig.

Dr Borg said the minister had explained actions she had taken both before the EC letter received in May and later. The final decision on these funds would be taken when the Commission was satisfied that all its suggestions had been implemented.

The inquiry report had said that two employees had made administrative mistakes which could have been avoided.

The minister said that after talks between Mrs Cristina and the EC, it had been decided that applications for participation in the Youth in Action programmes for 2010 would continue as planned.

Dr Borg said that this was a weak attempt by the opposition to discredit Minister Cristina. He listed what the PN had achieved compared to former Labour administrations, and said the number of students who carried on studying had increased from 40 to 75 per cent. Even female participation had increased, he said.