Ecting awarding of funds 13 says Aaron Farrugia

government has earmarked for the use of EU funds?

In terms of the next programming period we are still quite far off from knowing where we will spend the funds as we are still negotiating how much we will receive. Once that point has been reached, we will formulate a clear operational programme to present to the European Commission, detailing how and in what fields we will spend the funds. The fields would be both in accordance with the priorities set out by the European Commission and by the country’s own priorities. Once these priorities are set, then of course the necessary calls for ministries, NGOs or any other group to apply for funding will be issued.

We have also set up a specific unit that will look into other grants that the EU offers – those for which various countries or institutions will have to com- pete. Meanwhile, the European Union Programmes Agency (EUPA) has also been transferred under our wing.

Is there some form of stipulation from the EU saying that you have to spend a certain percentage of the funds in a specific field, or is it totally down to the government to decide?

There will be an understanding between both sides as to how the funds should be spent. Each country has to provide an operational programme on how and in what fields the funds will be spent, whilst the Commission has its own priorities on which it would like to focus, meaning that the end result will encapsulate both of these elements.

Have the corruption allegations that have been levelled against prominent members of this government affected how other countries, or the EU itself, have approached Malta?

Absolutely not. There is something of a debate, which is still in its infancy, on whether there should be measures that tie governance issues to European funds. There is no understanding as to whether the EU is moving in this direction or not; some countries are merely pushing it so far. An example of where such a mechanism could come into play, according to these countries, is in reducing the funds of those who don’t honour burden-sharing agreements regarding immigrants – or increasing the funds for those who do take immigrants.

What is certain is that Malta has never had any such governance issues in the eyes of the EU – only Poland and Hungary have had such issues levelled against them. We were never approached and told that we risked losing funding due to governance issues.

If we take the notion of good governance tied to funding - where does Malta’s line of thinking lie?

We believe that there should be a positive understanding between both sides, and that dialogue is very important. I’ve personally seen the importance of this – a country commits an infringement and, as a result of discussion, a solution is reached. Take Poland, for instance: they began at a situation where they were extremely hostile to the approach of the EU. Through dialogue, however, they found common ground to negotiate and I think that, at the end of the day, the two sides ended up coming closer together. I think that should be the approach, especially because we need to save the European project and the only way we can do that is by understanding each other. That being said, however, I am a firm believer that the values and principles of the EU project can never be impinged, and that those values and principles, set out in the 1950s when the Union was founded, can never be thrown out of the window.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has, time and time again, said that this will be his last legislature in charge. We’ve seen various reports of members of the Labour Party kicking off their campaign to be elected as the new leader. What do you expect from the upcoming process to choose the Party’s new leader?

My priority – and that of many others at the moment – is to convince Joseph Muscat to stay on and serve at least another term. If we look at the way the country has changed between 2013 and now, we can say that he is on a high and I believe that he still has a lot more to offer. His vision goes beyond 2020 and so I think our work should be to convince him to stay on. Personally, in fact, I am not talking – or even thinking about – a post-Joseph Muscat era.

Hypothetically though, let’s say that the Prime Minister is convinced and that this will be his last term - we’ve seen reports of factions developing within the Labour Party - do you think that a leadership election could result in such a separation?

I think the difference between us and other parties is that our party has massive talent. If you look at the parliamentary group, you can see people with a talent that others don’t have, so I think that the parliamentary group has to stay united, irrespective of what happens. And whatever does happen, we need to keep two things in mind: the benefit of the country and the benefit of the party. We are in a situation at the moment which isn’t doing any good for the country: what worries me about the Opposition is not the revelations coming out now, but that the opposition has no mechanism for policy-making. In Simon Busuttil’s time there were policy groups on different aspects - economy, social change, the environment - and they would each publish policy papers. Maybe we didn’t agree with them, but at least there was the peace of mind that someone else was working on such matters. Today this has been thrown out of the window.

My worry as a Maltese citizen – forget me as a politician – is that the Nationalist Party, due to a lack of vision and energy in providing an alternative for Malta, is weak in opposition. Therefore, given that the country has a weak opposition, we cannot afford to have a weak government, which is why I think that proper care should be given to the leadership situation so that we keep the benefit of the country and the party as the top priorities. This being said, I don’t think we are going to have issues such as this; I think we’re still in time to convince Joseph Muscat to stay on.