Updated - Richard Cachia Caruana, Malta's permanent representative to the European Union this evening said he wanted to categorically deny all the charges made against him in an opposition motion calling for his resignation.
"The accusations are false, unfounded, grave and slanderous," he told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
He said he had always done his duty as instructed by the prime minister and in terms of government policies and he had always sought the national interest.
"It is not true that I discussed with other governments ways how policy decisions could be taken behind Parliament's back.
"It is not true that I sought a system not to have parliamentary accountability.
"It is not true that I sought the interests of other countries over Malta's," Mr Cachia Caruana said.
He said that had these false, unfounded, grave and slanderous accusations been made outside the House, he would have taken court action to safeguard his reputation.
Mr Cachia Caruana also spoke about the context of the meetings held in late 2004, on which the Opposition's motion is based. He said he had only attended one of those meetings for 10 minutes. Those meetings were only about ways how Malta could be granted access to EU and Nato security documents, and membership of Partnership for Peace was never considered.
Mr Cachia Caruana said much of the document published by Wikileaks was about meetings which he had not attended, but in any case, he said, the documents tabled by the prime minister showed how they were about access to the security documents. Malta had been arguing that the security agreement (security of documents agreement) signed when Malta joined PfP was still in force and could be a way around the problem which existed at the time.
Mr Cachia Caruana regretted that the Opposition had relied on a cable written by an official of another country and had not sought Malta's official documents. Indeed, the Wikileaks document was written by an American officer who was not present in the meeting he himself had attended, Mr Cachia Caruana said.
Mr Cachia Caruana noted that Labour MP George Vella had homed in on the phrase 'would seek Washington's guidance' found in the Wikileaks cable. However, Mr Cachia Caruana said, that referred to the US official who was awaiting guidance from Washington, not himself.
A report by legal adviser Deborah Mangion confirmed that the reference to 'awaiting instructions from Washington' made in the Wikileaks document referred to an American official not not himself, Mr Cachia Caruana said. Indeed, proper reading of the text also showed that.
He had only followed instructions from the Maltese government, Mr Cachia Caruana said.
Concluding his statement, Mr Cachia Caruana said he had never avoided parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, he had introduced a system of communicating with the Foreign Affairs Committee and some 2,500 explanatory memoranda had been sent to the committee in the past eight years.
When he replied to questions by Dr George Vella on his roles in the government and the PN, Mr Cachia Caruana said he was always able to make the distinction between government and party.
He said that during the EU accession talks the problems on access to security documents had not been anticipated. The problem cropped up because Cyprus joined the EU with Malta and Nato member Turkey objected to Cyprus having access to the security documents. Malta became a hostage to that problem.
Prior to EU membership he was not involved in security issues but in building the structures for Malta to join the EU. He was not involved in any talks on a standing security agreement with Nato but as far as he knew this was the security of documents agreement.
Dr Vella said documents tabled by the prime minister mentioned a 'draft'. How could the document have been draft if this was the same document used for PfP?
Mr Cachia Caruana said references to PfP may have been deleted from it.
Dr Vella said the security agreement produced by the prime minister was the one signed in 1996 when Malta joined PfP.
Asked whether it had been evident that Nato's interests was to get Malta back in PfP, Mr Cachia Caruana said that would have been the easiest thing in order to solve the problem over access to security documents. But Malta at the time was against PfP membership.
Malta first sought an ad hoc security (of documents) agreement. Then Malta tried to use the 1996 security agreement (which was originally part of the PfP package of agreements). That was unacceptable to Nato. In 2005 he therefore proposed to the prime minister that Malta should try to persuade Nato and the EU to amend their own security of documents agreement. After talks, efforts reverted back to trying to make use of the 1996 agreement.
Turning to parliamentary scrutiny, Dr Vella observed that year after year, Malta replied 'no scrutiny' to COSAC (Conference of the committees of the national Parliaments of the European Union) reports. Mr Cachia Caruana said the representation had nothing to do with that since it was a parliamentary issue.
Dr Vella said this reflected a culture of lack of parliamentary scrutiny.
Foreign Minister Tonio Borg said this had nothing to do with the Opposition's motion and Mr Cachia Caruana's actions in 2004.
Dr Vella said that at the heart of the issue raised by the Opposition was the fact that it was not kept informed of what had been taking place in Brussels, and there was no parliamentary scrutiny.
Going back to the Wikileaks document, Dr Vella said it was clear that ways were being sought for Malta to get back to PfP without need for parliamentary ratification.
Mr Cachia Caruana said US government cables reflected the position of the US government. It had been suggested that Malta could be considered as having withdrawn from active participation in PfP while remaining a member, thus overcoming the existing problems. He was not present when this proposal was made by the Americans, Mr Cachia Caruana said, but no Maltese official had made any statement of going back to PfP and those words were not made by them.
During the debate, Dr Vella said he had nothing personal against Mr Cachia Caruana and only wanted to scrutinise his actions.
Mr Cachia Caruana said he had taken the motion personally.
Replying to further questions Mr Cachia Caruana said the bottom line at the time was that Nato wanted Malta back in PfP while Malta wanted a security of documents agreement without PfP. The 1996 PfP agreement consisted of four agreements and the suggestion was that the 1996 agreement security agreement (security of documents) was still active even though Malta withdrew from PfP.
Dr Vella said it was a lie that Malta in 1996 withdrew only from the individual partnership programme of PfP. It withdrew totally and all the related agreements were therefore rescinded.
Dr Vella asked Mr Cachia Caruana if he ever recommended between 2004 and 2008 that the government should consult parliament.
Mr Cachia Caruana said the relationship between the government and parliament were not within his remit.
Dr Vella noted that Mr Cachia Caruana had appeared before this House Committee for Foreign Affairs three times since 2004, and he never said anything about the problems Malta was having about access to documents.
Mr Cachia Caruana said the issues were in the public domain. They were mentioned in the media, and the Opposition too did not raise the matter or ask questions.
Dr Vella said the media reports were not detailed and there was nothing on what the government was doing.
Mr Cachia Caruana said there had been no formal government proposals which had matured sufficiently to go for debate in parliament.
Dr Vella asked Mr Cachia Caruana if he had sought legal advice about the validity of the agreements.
Mr Cachia Caruana said advice was sought and given.
Asked about his relationship with foreign ministers, Mr Cachia Caruana said he had worked well with ministers Frendo, Dalli and Borg. His tenure and that of Mr Dalli overlapped for only a month.
Questioning continues on Monday.
See live report on this website.