Labour MP Alfred Sant yesterday called on Mr Speaker to take whatever discreet but direct initiatives he deemed fit to regulate, carefully but without polemics, the direction that Parliament seemed to be taking in its handling of international agreements and their ratification.

Speaking on the adjournment, he was referring to what he called “vitiated procedures” in the steps Malta had taken with regard to its involvement in the eurozone and the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF).

He said agreements that Malta had entered into would probably be the basis of ever-wider treaties with more far-reaching effects. If Parliament was not careful in adhering to the Constitution, such treaties could be put on unsound local foundations.

Dr Sant said that following the debate and unanimous approval of two Bills concerning Malta’s contribution to the eurozone’s financial problems, allegations had been made in the House that he had resorted to nitpicking in order to embarrass the government and the country. He had purposely let time pass so that the “puerile polemic” raised by the Prime Minister and his government could subside.

He did not feel partisan politics should be allowed to creep into the debate on serious and correct procedures for the adoption of treaties and other legislation, as the government seemed to have wanted. The Bills had made no reference to changes that had been worked into both the eurozone loan to Greece and the setting up of the EFSF, or that the new treaties should be placed on the table of the House.

In this case, at least, the government had realised that the situation should be put right by submitting to Parliament the amended texts for inclusion as an integral part of the Bill. This had been the right decision, proving that he had not been nitpicking.

The result had been that an eight-page document initially presented for hasty debate and approval had finished up as legislation taking more than 280 pages.

At that stage he had raised what he considered a crucial point. The amended Bills and the resolution approved by Parliament, authorising the government to issue funds or guarantees as per agreements reached with other governments, should first have been ratified by the House. Every international agreement involving the spending of funds should first be ratified before the government is authorised to disburse the necessary funds.

Dr Sant said the ratification had never happened, leading him to feel that Parliament was acting fallaciously, with the risk that what it was doing could be null. He had asked for a ruling from Mr Speaker, who had concluded that through the two Bills the House had both ratified the agreements and authorised the government to proceed.

Since October 10, Dr Sant had sought separate legal advice from two experts who had both maintained that the ruling did not make legal sense. The concept of implicit ratification was worthless and corresponded to no provision under Maltese law. Express and unequivocal ratification of international agreements was a necessary procedure.

This meant that in approving Malta’s participation in the bailout of Greece and the EFSF, Parliament had been following an invalid procedure. It was unprecedented that the Speaker’s ruling constituted a flagrant breach of the law.

This brought up a Catch 22 problem in that any legislation that could be null could be contested only in court. But this could only be done by someone with legal standing, not by any citizen. In spite of general agreement that any legislation had been incorrectly introduced, nothing could really be done about it.