Nationalist MP Jesmond Mugliett showed his concern that parliament was losing its authority at a time when the EU was increasing its powers, with stronger scrutiny of budgets presented by member states and even requesting them to review their expenditures.
Speaking in Parliament during the second reading of the Bill amending the EU Act, Mr Mugliett said that parliament had to be given real strength and power to reflect the sentiments of the people. There was a thirst for good governance. In a small country such as Malta there was thirst for a system with greater participation reflecting diversity and not one where the dominant group always had its way.
Mr Mugliett asked whether other constitutional changes could be brought about in view of the agreement between the government and the opposition on budgetary governance. As a case in point he mentioned the way that the Broadcasting Authority was appointed.
One had to find ways on how to widen the process to ensure good governance giving more authority to Parliament to discuss matters before decisions in international fora were taken.
He said that together with a member of the opposition he had attended two EU joint parliamentary meetings which had discussed proposed changes on how member states qualified for cohesion funds. They had to give their reaction to these changes.
Mr Mugliett noted that although other parliamentarians present had put forward their country’s position, this was not the case in Malta. No such discussion had taken place in the Maltese parliament which had not responded to this need.
He referred to the House Public Accounts Committee and said that the best systems would not necessarily work if one was not genuine.
Referring to the ACTA agreement, Mr Mugliett said negotiations were not transparent when society had less obstacles and was becoming more transparent. Protests were not only held in Malta but also in some other 50 countries. European Parliament President Martin Schultz was against the treaty in its present form.
Mr Mugliett said he felt uncomfortable that Malta had signed this agreement and that some MEPs had also voted in its favour.
He asked why the debate in Malta started after the international controversy had reached Maltese shores and not before when these MEPs had the duty to disseminate this information to the local parliament.
He referred to the Bill on the right of online information proposed by the Prime Minister declaring that this should also address abuse of these rights. Freedom meant total accessibility online.
Speaking on a level playing field was vague.
He also asked why Malta signed the treaty when experts were saying that Maltese law already provided for such matters. The ACTA controversy brought forward the need to get people’s views before making commitments.
On the Bill itself Mr Mugliett said he did not doubt the genuineness of the amendment. However, he felt this was not consonant with the general sentiment that EU affairs be discussed and scrutinised further.