Government gave €400 million to foreigners instead of investing properly in health.
The PN framing implies €400M was 'stolen' or 'given away' to foreigners — that's not what the record shows. The ICC arbitration award (3 November 2025) explicitly found that no money was stolen: Malta got €889M of services / benefits delivered against €884M paid to Steward, a net €4.78M shortfall going the OTHER way. What's real is the opportunity cost — years of stalled public-hospital redevelopment while resources went into a concession that didn't deliver the strategic value originally promised.
The PN framing implies €400M was 'stolen' or 'given away' to foreigners — that's not what the record shows. The ICC arbitration award (3 November 2025) explicitly found that no money was stolen: Malta got €889M of services / benefits delivered against €884M paid to Steward, a net €4.78M shortfall going the OTHER way. What's real is the opportunity cost — years of stalled public-hospital redevelopment while resources went into a concession that didn't deliver the strategic value originally promised.
We tested Borg's framing against the ICC International Court of Arbitration award in Steward Malta v Republic of Malta (3 November 2025), NAO reports on the Vitals/Steward concession's financial flows, the active Maltese magisterial inquiry findings, and Health Ministry concession disclosures. The methodological question is whether the €400M was 'given to foreigners' in the sense the framing implies, or whether the ICC ruling on fair-value-delivered contradicts that implication.
Verdict lands at Misleading because the cash-flow figure is approximately right (~€457M cumulative across 2016-2021) but the ICC award explicitly found Malta received fair value — €889M of services delivered against €884M paid, with a €4.78M net shortfall going in Malta's favour. There was no judicial finding that money was stolen. The deep-dive lays out the cash-flow record and the ICC findings; the 'foreigners' framing also elides that Maltese officials structured the concession.
Did the government really give €400 million to foreigners instead of investing in health
Borg's framing implies €400M was 'stolen' or 'given away' to foreigners while Maltese hospitals withered. That's not what the ICC arbitration ruled and not what the public record shows. The cash flows are real and roughly correct; the 'money taken from Malta' framing is contradicted by the ICC's own restitution finding.
The cash record — the €400M is real
| Payment stream | Amount | To whom |
|---|---|---|
| Direct concessionaire payments 2016-2021 | €52.7M | Vitals Global Healthcare (original concessionaire) |
| Direct concessionaire payments 2016-2021 | €214.9M | Steward Health Care (took over from Vitals) |
| Seconded public-sector staff salaries | €188.5M | Paid by Maltese state, working at concession sites |
| Total taxpayer-side cost | ≈ €457M | Borg's '€400M' figure is conservative |
The total taxpayer-side cost is approximately €457M. Borg's '€400 million' is a conservative round-down. The cash record is well documented in NAO reports and parliamentary disclosures.
What the ICC actually ruled — no money stolen
This is where Borg's framing breaks down. On 3 November 2025, the International Chamber of Commerce arbitration ruled the concession 'legally void from inception' and rejected Steward's €148M counterclaim. Crucially, applying restitution principles, the tribunal found:
- Total benefits to Malta: €889M (services delivered, salaries of staff Malta would have paid anyway, infrastructure improvements where they occurred)
- Total benefits to Steward: €884M (the concession payments)
- Net position: €4.78M in Malta's favour
The ICC explicitly did not find that Malta's payments were stolen. There was no judicial finding of money disappearing or being 'given' to foreigners. The cash flowed, services flowed back, and the restitution calculation netted out fractionally in Malta's favour.
So the 'we gave them €400M' framing — implying loss of value — is contradicted by the ICC's own arithmetic on what Malta got back.
What the real harm is — opportunity cost
The Vitals/Steward concession was deeply harmful. But not in the way Borg frames it. The real costs:
- Opportunity cost. Years of stalled redevelopment at St Luke's, Karin Grech Rehabilitation Hospital and Gozo General Hospital — public facilities the concession was supposed to transform. The €457M cycled through a structure that didn't deliver the strategic transformation originally promised.
- Hospital capacity not built. Resources that should have gone into Mater Dei capacity expansion, regional health hub construction, and outpatient infrastructure were absorbed by concession-management overhead.
- Procurement integrity. The Maltese state's procurement controls failed visibly — a concession should not have been 'legally void from inception' on first scrutiny.
These are real and serious harms. None of them are the 'foreigners stole our money' story.
The 'foreigners' framing erases the Maltese officials
The active criminal case before the Maltese courts has 14 individuals and 9 companies charged with corruption, money laundering, fraud and bribery. Three of the key co-defendants are senior Maltese officials:
- Joseph Muscat — former Prime Minister
- Keith Schembri — former Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister
- Konrad Mizzi — former Energy and Health Minister
Calling this a 'foreigners' problem erases the Maltese half of the conspiracy. The structure of the concession that's now being prosecuted was put in place by Maltese officials at the highest levels of the previous Maltese administration. The foreign operators were beneficiaries of, not architects of, the structure.
So is the claim accurate?
The €400M cash-flow figure is approximately right (~€457M total). But the framing of that figure — 'given to foreigners' instead of invested in health — is contradicted by what the ICC arbitration actually ruled. No money was found to have been stolen; the harm is documented opportunity cost, plus active criminal prosecution of Maltese officials. Borg's framing flattens both halves into a 'foreigners took our money' narrative that doesn't survive contact with the ICC ruling.
Verdict: Misleading. The number is in the right ballpark; the narrative around the number is wrong.