Speaker Anglu Farrugia on Monday ruled that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) may summon Malta Film Commissioner Johann Grech once again, to provide full details on how €7.2 million in government funds were spent, after months of incomplete cooperation from the Commission.

Delivering his ruling on Monday just before the Budget speech, Farrugia said that PAC members were within their rights to request further clarification from Grech and that witnesses appearing before the Committee were obliged to "answer questions carefully, fully and honestly."

The ruling came after PAC chairman and PN MP Darren Carabott raised the matter in last Wednesday's sitting, saying that despite repeated requests since February, the Malta Film Commission had failed to provide full documentation on how €7.2 million in government funds allocated between 2019 and 2022 were utilised.

Carabott told the Speaker that the committee had formally requested the information in February 2025, including the dates of payments, their purpose, recipients, and copies of the relevant invoices.

While the Commission did send a breakdown of its amounts and its reference number, it did not provide documents confirming the dates of payment, considerations, who was paid, and a copy of all invoices vis-à-vis this €7.2 million.

Repeated follow-ups by the PAC's clerk and the involvement of the Permanent Secretary did not lead to compliance.

The PAC Chairperson had told the Speaker that the Malta Film Commission had recently informed the PAC that it will not be disclosing the remaining information requested by the parliamentary committee.

He said the committee had unanimously agreed on the request back in February and was now faced with a government entity "that is not cooperating fully in the provision of information."

Farrugia acknowledged Carabott's complaint and said he would review the correspondence and transcripts before delivering his direction, which he handed down five days later.

In his ruling, Farrugia summarised exchanges from multiple PAC sittings, including those held on 25 February, 4 March, 16 July, 24 September, and 22 October 2025.

During the February sitting, the committee, which is examining how the €7.2 million in central government funds were used, agreed to request full payment records and invoices.

The NAO had previously reported that while €2.4 million had been spent, the remaining €4.8 million appeared as "deferred income" on the Commission's accounts, raising questions about its whereabouts.

In that same sitting, Carabott clarified that the PAC were asking for the payment dates, the purpose, the recipients, and the attached invoices.

Government MP Alex Muscat initially agreed to further clarifications, but later argued that the requested data had already been provided.

By the October sitting, Muscat had insisted that the Film Commission had submitted a "clear and detailed breakdown" and that there was "no need to continue dragging on this matter."

Carabott, however, disagreed, stating that the PAC had not received the invoices or proof of payment that had originally been requested and approved by the committee.

The Speaker's ruling also referred to correspondence exchanged between the PAC clerk, Anna Brincat, and Film Commission officials.

In a 15 May email, Brincat had written to Film Commissioner Johann Grech asking for two clarifications on behalf of the PAC: an explanation of why the Commission's recurrent expenditure for 2024 had exceeded its approved estimates, and a breakdown of €560,000 spent under NACE Code 59 (related to film and TV production).

Farrugia said that a reply sent in July by Matthias Buttigieg on behalf of Screen Malta offered a breakdown of the spending by NACE code and listed several "virement" and budgetary shifts approved by the Ministries for Tourism and Culture.

However, the reply stopped short of providing the requested invoices or proof of payments.

Buttigieg's email acknowledged that additional requests had been made but referred the committee to the Film Commissioner's previous testimony for further explanation.

Farrugia also spoke of testimony given in February by Anthony Gatt, then Permanent Secretary within the relevant ministry.

During his appearance before the PAC, Gatt was questioned by PN MP Graham Bencini on why the Malta Film Commission had shared complete financial data with its external auditors, Grant Thornton, but not with the National Audit Office (NAO).

Bencini had asked: "If the audits were completed, it means the MFC provided Grant Thornton with all the information. So why was the same information not been given to the NAO if it already existed?"

Gatt had replied that he was not directly involved in the audit and could not confirm whether the same documentation had been provided, suggesting that the questions should be directed to the Film Commission itself.

The Speaker said that this exchange confirmed that the details of payment records and supporting documentation must have been to the satisfaction of the audit firm, Grant Thornton that completed its review on the Commission.

Citing parliamentary guidelines, Farrugia said that witnesses before the Public Accounts Committee are obliged to provide full and truthful information, and they are to answer questions put to them carefully, fully and honestly.

He said this duty applied to all entities and individuals called before the Committee and that members were entitled to recall witnesses when the information provided was incomplete or unsatisfactory.

Farrugia also referenced Erskine May, the British parliamentary authority on procedure, emphasising that the PAC has a specific duty to scrutinise government spending and excess votes.

This, he said, included cases where departments hold unexplained contingent liabilities or deviate from standard accounting practice.

Concluding his decision, Farrugia ruled that the Public Accounts Committee could, if its members agreed, summon Film Commissioner Johann Grech again to provide the full details originally requested last February.

This includes the payment dates, recipients, and invoices covering the €7.2 million in question.

He said the PAC's right to request further clarification was "in line with its mandate to ensure accountability and transparency in public spending."

"Given the circumstances, the members of the Public Accounts Committee, should they so agree, are to decide whether to send again for Mr Johann Grech to provide further details on the requested information," Farrugia ruled.