Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Health Chris Fearne speaks to Anthony Manduca about the proposed new IVF law, the hospitals deal, the rule of law and a future Labour leadership contest.
The Church has said the proposed amendments to the law regulating IVF [Embryo Protection Act] will turn children into commodities. How do your respond to such a statement?
The Church has a right to its views and I would like to stress that I have a good relationship with the Archbishop. Those who think that Labour politicians do not have cordial relations with the Archbishop are wrong, in fact the opposite is true. I have known the Archbishop since we were University students together and we have always been friends, we respect each other and we do a lot of good work together.
The Archbishop recently announced that the Church will be working on a project with the Hospice Movement [a residential palliative care facility]. The government is also involved in this project. I had discussed this with the Archbishop and it was decided that the Church would purchase the property, the Hospice Movement would manage it and the government would help by buying services and providing consultants. So we work very well with the Church.
To get back to your question, the government listens to what the Church has to say, and gives weight to its views, but ultimately the government has to decide. We have listened to the Bishops’ views on IVF legislation and we have had discussions with the Curia on this matter.
But will you change anything in the proposed IVF amendments after listening to the Bishops’ statement?
There is a parliamentary procedure to go through with the various readings of the Bill where amendments can be introduced. A number of Opposition MPs have spoken to me about certain amendments which will be considered.
The law will introduce the possibility of anonymous donors of gametes, surrogacy, the widening of IVF treatment to same-sex couples and single persons and the freezing of embryos. George Vella, a former Labour Foreign Minister, tweeted his disapproval of the proposed amendments, saying: “A complete travesty of ethics, morality and human dignity, allegedly to remove ‘discrimination’ imposed by nature itself.” Is he right?
I have known George Vella since I was a medical student. He is one of my mentors – both when I was studying medicine, he is an excellent doctor – and also as a politician. When he was Foreign Minister I was for a while the chairman of Parliament’s Foreign and European Affairs Committee and he was inspirational. We respect each other very much and I contest the same electoral district as he did.
On LGBTIQ matters it is a fact that we never saw eye to eye. However, I can say that on this new law I have the unanimous support of not only the Cabinet but also the Labour parliamentary group.
Why doesn’t the Labour Party give a free vote on the new IVF law?
The Nationalist Party is allowing a free vote on this matter because it has an internal problem and lacks a common position. The Leader of the Opposition said he was both in favour and against the proposed law. The government has an electoral mandate to widen the IVF law in favour of patients and its parliamentary group is united on the matter.
So you’re saying that there was never internal dissent within the Labour Party on this issue?
We have been discussing the matter within Labour’s parliamentary group for some time and there were different opinions along the way but after certain amendments were proposed I can say that there is unanimity.
Embryo freezing is being introduced on the condition that unused embryos will be adopted.
Can you guarantee that adoptions will take place considering that the ‘best two’ embryos out of the permitted five for IVF treatment will be selected? And what about the risk of frozen embryos being destroyed, as statistically one in every three dies in the thawing process?
The statistics you are quoting are somewhat antiquated. The survival rate of embryos is about 90 per cent. What we are proposing today is greater protection of the embryo. As the law stands today, during an IVF cycle, two eggs are fertilised, or in some cases three, and the rest of the eggs are frozen to be used in other cycles. In the new law we are saying that three eggs can be fertilised, and in such a case, two will be implanted and one will be frozen. Five eggs can be fertilised in subsequent cycles. As the law stands today, if a frozen egg is fertilised and implanted, the chances that the embryo will live are much less than the chances that a frozen embryo will live after being implanted. The medical advice we have been given is that the proposed amendments will lead to less embryos not surviving. The amendments will lead to more successful pregnancies.
We [the Archbishop and I] have always been friends, we respect each other and we do a lot of good work together
What about unused embryos being adopted?
Frozen embryos can be used in other cycles so the chances are that they will be used by the same people. We are also saying that once there are frozen embryos, the age limit for cycles will be raised from 43 to 48. As part of the conditions attached to having frozen embryos one must also accept that if you do not use them, somebody else will. This means that all frozen embryos will be given the chance to develop into a pregnancy.
But there is no guarantee that unwanted frozen embryos will be adopted, which means they could remain in that state forever.
We believe such adoptions will take place and people have already told us they will be willing to adopt a frozen embryo. It could be that people who have frozen embryos will say that they would like a relative to be given the opportunity to adopt a frozen embryo. This can happen. Or an anonymous adoption can take place, where the embryos that have been frozen the longest will be used first, so I don’t think they will be in that state forever as there will be a turnover. It is important to note that in the case of anonymous adoption, prospective parents will not be able to choose their frozen embryo; this will be given to them by the authority, and they will be given the embryo that has been frozen the longest.
Do you believe the embryo is a child and should have the same rights?
We believe an embryo has its own dignity. An embryo is at a stage when it consists of cells, it then becomes a foetus, then a baby, then a child. At each stage of development it has its dignity. That is why we oppose not having a limit on the number of eggs that can be fertilised or the process not being regulated or allowing embryos to be destroyed. We are also completely against any type of research being conducted on these embryos.
Some people have warned that these changes to the IVF law will lead to the introduction of abortion.
We are categorically against abortion. These changes have nothing to do with abortion and will lead to less embryos being lost.
The hospitals private-public partnership was a mess: the company entrusted with the project pulled out after less than two years with missed targets and millions of taxpayers’ money unaccounted for. Who should be held accountable for this?
I don’t completely agree with your statement. It seems that the hospitals private-public partnership agreement has now picked up momentum and enjoys the consensus of the stakeholders. We had long discussions with the MAM, we took note of the situation and how the situation had changed with Steward coming into the picture and we saw how we could learn from the whole process and go forward in a better manner.
The agreement with the MAM is just that: we acknowledge that lessons can be learnt, and we have signed similar agreements with the General Workers’ Union and the MUMN, and we are holding good discussions with the UĦM. The end result is that we will have a better service and patients will benefit.
On the financial question, both with regard to Vitals and Steward Health Care, I can tell you after I myself had requested, about one and a half years ago, for the NAO to investigate this private-public partnership, the NAO has initiated the investigation. The NAO is examining the original contracts with Vitals, how funds were dispensed, what become of the money – in my opinion everything was above board – but the NAO will be able to confirm this – and also the transfer between Vitals and Steward. The NAO is looking into all this and I’m informed that Steward will be in a position to account for everything the government passed on to them. The NAO will then produce a report which will be passed on to Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee which is chaired by an Opposition MP, and it will be discussed in detail.
Edward Scicluna had told The Sunday Times of Malta in an interview that with hindsight he wished the original Vitals deal had been more transparent. Do you agree with him?
I was the person who asked the NAO to investigate this deal. I understand that there are aspects of a commercial nature ….
Don’t you think there was a waste of money?
No I don’t think so. As I understand it, the money that was given by the government to the concessionaire was according to the contract between the two sides. God forbid we come to a situation where the government does not honour its commitments signed in a contract, otherwise investment into the country would suffer. As far as the Ministry of Health is concerned it seems that everything was done as it should have.
When do you think the NAO report will be completed?
There is no timeframe but I am informed that the investigation has started and is proceeding at a good pace.
Who took the decision to replace Vitals with Steward and why was it taken?
This was a share transfer between two private companies and the deal took place between them. Since this took place at the beginning of the concession the government had the right to approve or disapprove of the deal. The government carried out a due diligence on Steward and it came to the conclusion that it was a reputable company which operates 39 hospitals, has a good track record in the health sector, is backed by strong financial institutions and is physician-led. We concluded that with Steward on board the situation will be good and we approved the share transfer.
I recently visited Steward’s hospitals and institutions in Boston, together with some ministry officials, and we were very impressed. I believe that if Steward replicates what they do at their American hospitals in Gozo and Malta we will have made huge strides forward.
I don’t think anyone doubts Steward’s professionalism. The problem was with Vitals because they had no experience in the health sector and nobody knew who these people were.
The problem has now gone.
Would you have resigned had you been in the position of Konrad Mizzi or Keith Schembri in the wake of the Panama revelations and serious allegations of improper financial dealings?
Whatever I possess and whatever I could have possessed has been declared in Parliament, as has, I believe, by the Honourable Mizzi. There is no situation in which I had accounts in some other jurisdiction. I have accounts in Maltese banks, I have a Barclays Bank account in England as I used to work there and I have some bonds and shares, all of which are declared. So that question never entered my mind. I don’t think my integrity has ever been questioned so it’s useless speculating about it.
How worried are you about the serious questions being asked of Malta’s track record in the financial sector, especially in regard to the weakness of institutions in fighting money laundering and other financial crimes?
We have recently strengthened our anti-money laundering laws. Later on this year Moneyval, the European agency which assesses compliance with international standards to counter money laundering and the financing of terrorism, will be coming to Malta on a scheduled visit. I believe we are well prepared and we will pass with flying colours. When it comes to institutions and processes it seems we are well prepared and in a better situation than before as we have introduced a number of new regulations.
We need to remember that when some countries attempt to portray our institutions or our tax regime – which has been in place for almost 20 years – in a bad light – they have their own agenda, including trying to take part of our market in the financial services sector.
When certain people, including Maltese MEPs, fall into this trap, of enjoying seeing other countries criticising Malta, we need to be a bit careful. I am not saying there should be no criticism, far from it. I believe in a robust Opposition and that the media should have full liberty to criticise the government. I also believe in government transparency and that we in government need to be accountable, and I have always tried to practise this in my portfolio. But we must be careful not to give fodder to other people to beat us with.
Are you happy that the rule of law is being upheld in all ways?
I understand that in these past months, and perhaps in these last two years, there has been a campaign focused on the government’s record in governance. I believe there were instances where we could have, as a government, presented ourselves in a better way than we did. Perhaps we gave the impression that sometimes, in order to hurry or to be more efficient, we cut corners. We did not need to give this impression as in reality this was not the case. As a government we are careful to do things properly, so much so that during this period, apart from the cases that involved ministerial resignations, there was no evidence that was proven in court that showed that laws were broken, or that the government did not act in accordance with the rule of law.
We have actually strengthened the rule of law, such as by introducing the Whistleblower Act, a law on the financing of political parties and the removal of prescription on corruption charges for politicians. The police and judiciary are independent and a number of inquiries, some at the request of the government, are under way.
Are you content with the fact that so many reports have emerged containing allegations of money laundering which implicate senior government officials, as well as allegations about Pilatus Bank?
Pilatus is not a government bank. It’s not my job to defend the directors of that bank; they can do that themselves. So far, all these allegations have been just that, allegations, and there are a number of magisterial inquiries under way. If there is evidence I believe this should be passed on to a magistrate, and the then Leader of the Opposition had even passed on a number of files to a magistrate, suggesting he was in possession of evidence.
Isn’t that a problem though? That the Leader of the Opposition had to go to court because the police took no action?
The police did their part as well but the Leader of the Opposition, like any other citizen, was well within his rights to do what he did.
Do you have confidence in the Police Commissioner?
Yes I do, so much so that after the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, three people were charged in court with her killing. I am not saying these people are guilty, we have to wait for the court proceedings to be concluded, but it seems that the police are doing their job.
The problem is that we do not know who was behind Daphne’s killing.
So far we do not know, but it is the task of the police to find out.
If you were Prime Minister, what would be the first thing you would do differently to the present one?
First of all I hope that Joseph Muscat remains Prime Minister for many more years. Ever since Labour was elected in 2013 the country has advanced considerably. Few people doubt the economy is in a better shape than it was five years ago or that there are more job opportunities or that people’s quality of life has improved or that health and education have made great strides forward. We have found the right formula for the country’s success. Whoever succeeds Joseph Muscat would be wise to keep the same formula. I believe the process that Joseph Muscat began 10 years ago when he became Labour leader should continue.
He [Joseph Muscat] has made this declaration [about stepping down] a number of times and I believe he will keep his word
Joseph Muscat has said he will not be Labour Party leader at the next general election. Do you think he will keep his word?
I have always known Joseph Muscat to keep his word. In this particular case I wish I and many of my colleagues can convince him to change his mind but he has made this declaration a number of times and I believe he will keep his word.
Will you be a candidate for the leadership of the Labour Party once Joseph Muscat steps down?
It’s premature to consider whether to make a leadership bid. Joseph Muscat said he will remain party leader until after the European elections. What is certain is that Labour has a number of very valid people, and in the event of Joseph Muscat eventually stepping down there will be a very good leadership contest. Whoever takes over, I believe the Labour Party and the country have a very good future ahead.
When would be the ideal time for Joseph Muscat to step down?
(Laughs) A year after the next general election.
That would mean not keeping his word.
You asked me the question and I answered!
This interview was conducted before the latest revelations emerged about Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri from the Daphne Project.