Finance Minister Edward Scicluna yesterday conceded that the Panama Papers scandal and the nomination of former Environment Minister Leo Brincat for the European Court of Auditors “could have been handled better with our [the Labour Party]’s Socialist and Democrats European Parliamentary group.
On Tuesday Mr Brincat was rejected by the European Parliament as Malta’s candidate for the ECA, with 381 votes against, 229 in favour and 58 abstentions. He initially obtained just enough votes at the budgetary committee stage, largely thanks to a vote from Alfred Sant, but was overwhelmingly defeated in the EP. He has since declared he will be plough ahead with his nomination before the European Council of Ministers, which has the right to overturn the result.
Permanent rapporteur for ECA nominations Igor Soltes, in exclusive comments with The Malta Independent earlier this week, said that there could be a lack of cooperation from the EP if the Council chose to ignore the EP’s decision.
In addition to this, S&D MEP Anna Gomes, as well as deputy head of the Panama Papers committee has also been critical, saying that she cannot understand how Brincat’s nomination is still on in spite of the negative outcome.
Asked about criticism from allies, such as the S&D MEP Ms Gomes, Professor Scicluna said: “I honestly think it could have been handled better with our S&D group, of course, because the individual could have been me. I mean, it is not the individual being criticised but what he stands for. That should have been explained better and the outcome could have been different or better, let’s face it.”
Turning to whether Mr Brincat’s decision to take his vote before the Council, despite the EP rejection, disrespects or calls into question the authority of the EP, he said that:
“There are certain things reserved for the Council, for example taxation. Despite this, they still ask for the opinion of the EP. We might agree or disagree, but in this case I do not know what the outcome of the Council is going to be. It’s the Council which has the last say. They will take into consideration the EP’s opinion – they might agree with it or not. This is how it works, it is not a question of co-decision, and if it were a directive then we need to negotiate until we agree. In this case it is the remit of the Council that is based on the opinion of the parliament and the committees.”
Confronted with comments by Mr Soltes and a lack of cooperation on behalf of the EP with regards the Council, Professor Scicluna said that “this is the usual turf-war, I am in the Council and was in the EP so I understand both sides. We always used to be irritated by the council; the council knows that and its politics. Everybody is responsible for his or her action.”