Parliamentary Secretary Josè Herrera this evening accused the Opposition of kicking up “a storm in a teacup” over the one share in Fort Security Services Ltd given to an 18-year-old youth, who had, in the meantime, relinquished his holding.

To repeated questions by Opposition MPs, Dr Herrera said it was obvious that the sole shareholder would have had no commercial or financial sway in the company, even in the case of a vote.

He recalled that up to a few years ago, the registration of a new company called for at least two shareholders, even three, but later amendments to the Partnerships Act had changed that. There was really no hard and fast rule, and it was still the practice to have a nominal shareholding if one so desired.

Opposition Deputy Leader Mario de Marco said that going by Dr Herrera, the government could have appointed another of its own companies, such as Mimcol or Malta Industrial Parks, as the nominal shareholders. What had stopped the government?

Dr Herrera said a company could indeed be registered with one shareholder, but what the government had done with the young shareholder could not be taken to imply bad faith.

Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil said this did not justify what the government had done, because the shares belonged to the people and not the government.