Many speakers in the parliamentary debate on the eco-contribution, and many writers in the media, expressed anger that while government was bringing in another tax, it found the money to splash out on the embassy in Brussels.
Malta’s new embassy or, more precisely, the offices of Malta’s permanent representation to the EU, will be at 25 Rue Archimede, just across the street from the Berlaymont building.
The Berlaymont, for many long years the symbol of the EU, has been unused for the past few years due to danger from the asbestos lining it. It has been cleaned up at a huge cost (and an even bigger number of controversies) and is due to once again become the head office of the European Commission some time later this year.
The building which will become the new Maltese embassy, or Dar Malta, is being used at present to house some commission offices. Next door to it is the Norwegian embassy.
Speaking in Parliament last week during the eco-contribution debate, parliamentary secretary Tonio Fenech explained the reasons for this purchase.
The present embassy in Brussels is too small to be used, he argued, since the present 15 staff will be increased to 50. It was clear that a new building had to be found.
Mr Fenech gave the strongest government reason for the purchase: now that Malta is in the EU, it is important for Malta to be present on all committees, and all the openings it can have, as a member state. “We just cannot allow ourselves to be absent, so that others take our decisions for us,” Mr Fenech argued.
Having decided on the need to relocate, the question next was to find out which was the best place to relocate to.
Mr Fenech said it could have been cheaper to find a building on the outskirts of Brussels, but this was impractical. The building needed to be in the centre of Brussels, possibly within walking distance of the commission and other EU institutions, such as the council. (If anything, it is some distance away from the European Parliament, but very near to the EU institutions).
The next issue to be dealt with regarded the way the building would be financed. During negotiations, government was told that a 27 year lease would cost E1.5 million a year, or Lm600,000. It was for this reason that government decided on outright purchase. In this way, the value of the property would rise as years go by, and government would see the value of its property appreciate.
As an example of this kind of reasoning, Mr Fenech referred to Malta House in London. This was purchased in 1992 and cost, all in all, some £7.5 million. Today it is worth at least £10 million.
Despite this clarification, the issue continued to be raised in Parliament. Opposition leader Alfred Sant said the final cost could be as high as Lm12 million and its purchase showed how Richard Cachia Caruana still got his way with the Lawrence Gonzi administration. This purchase was not even mentioned in the last Budget Speech.
It was Adrian Vassallo who, in a sense, brought the House down: he seemed to think, as minister George Pullicino pointed out while winding up the discussion on Friday night, that this Brussels embassy was some sort of villa with trees and parks and all.
Writing in The Times yesterday, Ivan Camilleri said the final contract of sale was signed by Mimcol on behalf of the Maltese government on 25 June. The negotiations for the outright purchase of the 10-storey building were conducted by a technical committee headed by leading entrepreneur Albert Mizzi.
The government will be spending a total of Lm9 million on the property: Lm6.5 million to buy the building and Lm2.5 million on structural works and services.