Pressure over Council of XII residency cases, Zeppa: “They call my mobile. I won’t play these games”

Matteo Zeppa (Rete): I find myself compelled to make this statement, which I already made in the Council of XII. There, a regime of confidentiality applies among councillors, Their Excellencies pro tempore, and the other parties involved; here, however, you proposed and voted for a secret session, which I opposed from the outset. Precisely for this reason, I believe it is necessary to publicly reiterate what I already said in the Council of XII. You know that I try to carry out my role in a political and, at the very least, conscientious manner. When certain residency requests come in, my assessments are based on the documentation brought to the attention of all commissioners and, in particular, on two elements that I consider decisive: any criminal record, based on Gendarmerie certificates, and the existence of debts owed to the State. What I will not accept is being contacted privately on my mobile phone for having dealt — moreover under a regime of secrecy — with cases in which one of these two elements emerged, or, in some cases, both. I will not accept being pressured by those who have criminal records or debts owed to the State. Precisely because we are under a regime of secrecy, I consider it even more serious that this could happen. I have been a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee since 2012, and those who have been here since then know that I have always expressed my positions clearly, and I will continue to do so. But if my mobile number is passed on by the private secretary of a Secretary of State — and I exclude those present here — then I won’t stand for it. This is why I am asking once again that the secrecy regime be lifted. The issues I raise regarding these cases are tied to precise criteria: criminal records and debts owed to the State. I do not want to receive messages, through intermediaries, in this country of omertà, about the positions I take, because the documents speak clearly. If the rules are the same for everyone, they must be so all the way through. I may have made many mistakes in my assessments, but if these are the criteria I use, I will not compromise on my ability to express my positions, whether publicly or under a regime of secrecy. And above all, I will not accept that my mobile number be passed on to someone with an interest in the cases we are called upon to examine. I won’t stand for these rules. This is not about you, Secretary — I will have the opportunity to explain elsewhere who I am referring to — but it is a way of proceeding that I do not accept. My proposal, then, is very simple: not from today, since the agenda has already been set, but from next time onward, I ask that these sessions be held in public. In this way, if someone needs to respond to my observations, they will do so publicly and address the substance: whether or not there are debts owed to the State, and whether or not there is a criminal record. I am hot-headed, but I am of a certain age now and have started to think things through. If something like this had happened to me ten years ago, I probably wouldn’t be here — I’d be somewhere else. That is why I won’t stand for it. And the same goes for the Council of XII: if a regime of confidentiality applies, I will not accept being subsequently contacted by those who submitted the requests under examination. I have my own approach: it may be right or wrong, but it is mine, and I pursue it based on the elements made available to me. I apologize, Mr. President, if I have taken advantage of this final public moment, but I felt it necessary to say this so that whoever is listening, or whoever is informed of these words, knows clearly where I stand. Because I will not play these games.