When effective parliamentary scrutiny is undermined

I refer to the reports (February 8,9) regarding the debate in Parliament on the European Union (Amendment) Bill.

The Bill aims to bring decisions taken under a new simplified procedure set out by the Lisbon Treaty and recently finalised, within the ambit of the European Union Act. The latter incorporates all international agreements entered into in the EU context as one body of laws and regulations.

While outlining inputs to the debate made by Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg and Francis Zammit Dimech, the reports presented a garbled version of those made by George Vella and myself. Here follow some points I raised and to which a serious answer is long overdue:

(1) The European Union Act does not provide for the parliamentary ratification of a new agreement concluded by Malta under the EU system but for its incorporation into the overall body of EU law applicable in Malta as a seamless instrument. The minister was confusing ratification of any such new agreement with its incorporation under the European Union Act but the agreement would still need parliamentary ratification under the Ratification of Treaties Act, like the European Union Act itself did.

(2) Treaties and agreements signed within the eurozone framework have not been duly ratified by Parliament and this is in breach of the Constitution. Any future government would have the legal standing to go before the courts in an action to declare such agreements null.

(3) The real thrust of what has been happening however is to undermine effective parliamentary scrutiny, since such agreements have been brought before Parliament as a fait accompli and simply in order to authorise disbursements under their aegis.

(4) Scrutiny of developments over eurozone and related matters is limited to question and answer sessions when the Prime Minister attends a European Council. Hearings in which MPs can scrutinise and seek information about developments leading to agreements have never been held. For instance, in early December 2011, the Prime Minister informed Parliament he had committed the Central Bank of Malta to a participation of up to €200 million in a new IMF fund in support of eurozone problem countries. Later in the month, it was announced in Brussels that the Central Bank’s participation would in fact be €260 million.

Parliament has never been updated on this. This contrasts with how other European Parliaments have demanded and gotten ever closer consultation on EU agreements, which are eroding their decision-making power over national budgets and committing their state coffers to new and extensive financial obligations under eurozone safeguard measures (in Malta’s case to the tune of between €1 billion and €1.2 billion in loans, cash plus guarantees actual and potential).

(5) As a tool for parliamentary scrutiny, the Malta-EU Steering and Action Committee is a joke while, over and above the real absence of consultation and scrutiny about eurozone and other developments, parliamentary resources to monitor them remain totally insufficient.