Foreign Minister Tonio Borg has told Parliament that once a treaty or its extension was approved after scrutiny by the House Foreign and European Affairs Committee and the House under the EU Act, there was no need for a third debate under the Treaties Ratification Act.

Dr Borg was reacting to comments by Labour MPs Luciano Busuttil and George Vella during the debate in second reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill. He explained that although the Bill specifically mentioned that the Prime Minister, by order, declared that the treaty should be conclusive, in reality he presents a draft order before the House. It was up to the members to approve it or otherwise.

Dr Vella said that from what the government had said, the opposition understood that when the decision was approved by the committee and the whole House under the European Union Act there was no need of further debate under the Ratification of Treaties Act. Dr Borg confirmed this position.

Earlier, Dr Busuttil said that if proof was needed of the opposition’s interest in EU affairs, this was its full participation in discussions within the Malta-EU Steering and Action Committee (Meusac).

The amendment could have serious repercussions. It should have been discussed between the sides informally before its presentation in Parliament. It was dubious in nature although changes to be made in committee stage would clear some of these doubts.

One had to define better what one meant by the contribution given by Parliament. This did not necessarily mean that an order could be changed.

Dr Busuttil complained that the House Foreign and European Affairs Committee did not have the necessary resources to scrutinise EU matters. Meusac was better poised to do such scrutiny because it had adequate financial support.

He pointed out that Alfred Sant (PL) had been rebuked for showing that the government was wrong in the procedure adopted on the issue of the second bailout to Greece even though he was later proved right.