Leo Brincat, Labour Party spokesman on foreign affairs and information technology, said that without entering into the merits of the abilities which the head of the private secretariat of Minister Austin Gatt might have, the MLP felt it its duty to ask if there was a serious lack of transparency and administrative ethics, if this person was involved in the evaluation of a number of large information technology projects involving millions of liri.

Rebutting Mr Brincat’s claims, Investment Minister Austin Gatt said the information that Mr Brincat had, that his head of secretariat took part in the evaluation process of public tenders, had been available to the public for a long time and no one had tried to withhold it or hide it.

It was the same for the head’s appointment to represent the government’s interests in SmartCity (Malta) Ltd.

Mr Brincat said that their information was that the head was allegedly involved in the core evaluation team of tenders worth millions of liri in information technology, including the National ID Management System.

He was also said to have been involved in the preparations of a tender for an integrated utilities business system between Enemalta and the Water Services Corporation, which by itself would cost over Lm25 million.

The head also represented the government’s interests on the SmartCity project.

If all this was true, it was totally unacceptable that the head of the private secretariat of any minister should be involved directly or indirectly in the evaluation of tenders worth millions and in a project which the government itself says will be the largest project in financial terms.

Because of these allegations and implications about a lack of administrative ethics, they expected more than a simple answer by the minister; they also expected the reaction of the prime minister with regard to whether he felt this was a way of practising good governance.

Dr Gatt replied that Mr Brincat did not want to go into the merits of the secretariat head’s abilities.

In fact, it was because of these abilities, and the trust he enjoyed from the government in representing the government’s interests, that the head took part in these processes.

The person was a public employee, and was so before being appointed secretariat head and was therefore competent to act in this role as any other civil servant.

Dr Gatt said that if Mr Brincat had any grounds on which he felt the head should be disqualified, Mr Brincat should reveal what these grounds were.

Dr Gatt denied there was any conflict of interest – personal or institutional – so it had to be presumed that Mr Brincat had made his statement to intimidate a person who was doing his duty competently and efficiently.