Malta's nominee for representative on the European Court of Auditors, former environment minister Leo Brincat, scraped through his EP committee hearing with just one vote. After a tough hearing before the EP's Budgetary Control Committee,  Mr Brincat made it through with 11 votes in favour, 9 against and one abstention. 

In response to questions asked by this newsroom following the grilling, Mr Brincat was asked to say whether there were others within the PL camp who felt that their hands were also tied. He answered: "I did not compare notes with any others. All I can do is speak for myself. When I say tied, what I mean is that when any Prime Minister issues a directive to the party whip is standard procedure. It happens in many other countries. As draconian as it may sound we use the British system".

He referred to an article written in the local press by Prof. Kevin Aquillina on the matter. "He describes how the whip system works in Malta and elsewhere. I'm not accusing the Prime Minister in any way, on the contrary. I think that when a Party leader issues instructions to the whip they are binding and if anyone chooses not to adhere to them has two risks, that of being sacked or suspended from the Parliamentary Group. I felt that I stood a better chance of motivating stronger goodgovernance by continuing to work within the party. 

Asked concretely, whether he would vote to remove Minister Mizzi should he have had a free vote, he said that he used strong language in articles in the past, and quoted from one, saying that such precedence risks destroying the achievements the Labour government had made, particularly in the diplomatic field". 

Earlier: Leo Brincat said his hands were tied during the vote of no confidence in Konrad Mizzi, given that the Prime Minister refused to give a free vote.

The first question fired at Malta’s nominee to the European Court of Auditors was specifically linked to that vote. Leo Brincat is being questioned by the EU Committee on Budgetary Control today, who will evaluate the Maltese nominee’s nomination and recommend it or otherwise to the European Parliament. Mr Brincat's question and answer session turned out to be quite a grilling, however the former minister kept his composure, and responded decisively.

Mr Brincat said that in Malta, we use the British Parliamentary system, “whereby anyone in breach of the Party leadership can either be expelled or suspended from the Parliamentary Group. This shows I had no choice. Some people believe my vote was a decisive one, but it wasn’t. That vote ended 36 to 31 against the motion".

A vote of no confidence had been called after Minister Mizzi was found to feature within the Panama Papers.

He said that he also had made various statements, one of which was that when such mistakes are made, government risks diminishing its own success.

He stressed that when it comes to politically exposed persons, ethics are just as important as legalities, or illegalities. 

“I considered resigning, but if one resigns in Malta, they would be a hero for a day, however ultimately one would end up in the wilderness. I feel that by continuing to work within the structures, limited your contribution may be, you will still be able to exert pressure from within”

If he were in Minister Mizzi's shoes, he said, he would have resigned or suspended himself. He also said that Lux Leaks and the Panama Papers will likely lead to financial reforms. He said, however, that Malta got rid of its banking secrecy long ago.

MEPs also asked the former minister about unpublished government contracts. Mr Brincat, in turn, spoke of the importance of major contracts being published, stating that government should keep to the proposed deadline, which was to towards the end of this year. He said that the Public Accounts Committee cannot scrutinise a contract if it is not made public.

Mr Brincat was asked about his ability to be independent. In response, he spoke about the setting up of the Environment and Resources Authority. "When I met with employees and management of the authority, as well as trade unions within the authority, I gave them two important messages. "The first, that I would not interfere in the day-to-day running, and the second that they have an important role to play as watchdogs. When I resigned due to this nomination, we had just set up the mechanisms, structures and functions of the authority, so obviously I cannot be held responsible for anything after May". He also mentioned his role on the Public Accounts Committee.

He also said that When allegations of misappropriation of EU funds surfaced, he always immediately asked oversight bodies to investigate complaints.

Mr Brincat's grilling came to an end, and he is now awaiting the Committee's decision. After the Committee vote, a final vote will then need to be taken during a European Parliament plenary session, and the final decision lies with the European Council through consultation with the EU Parliament.

Mr Brincat was not Malta’s first choice for the position, with former PL Deputy Leader Toni Abela having not received a favourable decision by the same committee, and withdrawing before the EU Parliament plenary vote. Informed sources had previously told this newsroom that Leo Brincat would indeed face questions about his backing in Minister Konrad Mizzi during a vote of no confidence, following the Panama Papers revelations. This information turned out to be correct.

The same sources however, said that this vote, for the European Parliament Committee on Budgetary Control to back Leo Brincat for the auditing post, is still very much in the air. Other sources say that he will definitely pass.

Maltese MEPs were present in the room for the hearing, however no Maltese MEP sits on Committee. There are nominees from three countries facing a vote today.