Former Prime Minister Alfred Sant has delivered a stern warning that, because the government was by-passing Parliament, any future administration could declare null and void the agreement Malta entered into with respect to the Greek bailout because the legal foundation for such agreement was unsupported. Parliament, he said, was exposing itself to €1.2 billion without the proper legal backing.
Speaking during the debate in second reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill, Dr Sant said that likewise, the fiscal pact needed to be discussed but no discussion had taken place.
The legal procedure requested the government to sign the pact, parliament to scrutinise it and then for it to be legally appended to the European Act.
Piloting the Bill, Foreign Minister Tonio Borg said that because the original Act was introduced before the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, which changed the method of amendment of treaties, an amendment was needed to make sure the entrenchment of EU laws to Maltese law was done properly. The Bill gives the right to Parliament to debate and vote on any changes to EU treaties at committee and plenary stages unless MPs decided to relinquish the process.
Dr Sant said both parties must work together.
Earlier, the Labour MP said the situation was one of concern because there was no transparency or consistency in the dealings between Malta and EU and the way decisions were being taken.
The government had a passive attitude towards any EU legislation and never questioned any Bill. Parliament was inactive and the Malta-EU Steering & Action Committee (Meusac) offered no proper debate on European matters. In one case the government had even unilaterally decided to increase Malta’s contribution to a fund created to assist poorer countries by €60 million from €200 million to €260 million without any discussion in, or approval from parliament.
Dr Sant said he was not a eurosceptic; it was the others on government benches who were eurofanatics. Every government was in a straightjacket with regard to European Union dealings and that was the reason why parliamentary scrutiny was essential.
What was being discussed was an addendum to the main Act. A legal procedure was established in the Ratification of Treaties Act of 1983 and one therefore had to discuss why the government was appending this treaty to the European Act.
Lack of transparency prevailed even in the way Dr Borg presented the Bill, Dr Sant said. Ratification had to emanate from the national parliament and in this sense was similar to the process adopted through the European Accession Act which in fact dealt with the ratification of treaties.
However, what was truly worrying was lack of adherence to legal procedures.
Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs George Vella complained that the Foreign Affairs Committee did not have the necessary structures and resources to scrutinise decisions taken within the European Act as envisaged under the Bill regarding the simplified revision procedure.
He also complained that although the Attorney General had given his advice on the Bill to the minister last November, Dr Borg only informed the opposition of this in his introductory address. Dr Vella said the opposition was cautious on this amendment because the government did not respect Parliament.
Parliament was currently being treated as an appendix to the travelling needs of the government members and the government had adopted the deferred voting system which radically changed the nature of Parliament and this became a matter of convenience. This system was adopted in other countries on specific items only.
Dr Vella emphasized the need of a parliamentary discussion on matters relating to the European Council’s decisions.
The debate continues on Monday.