The government was facing a potentially embarrassing situation on hunting yesterday, with the Labour Party’s information office quoting European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas saying in the European Parliament that during membership negotiations, Malta had not negotiated any agreement on spring hunting.

The only point that was agreed on, Mr Dimas was quoted saying during a debate on illegal hunting in Malta, was a transition period for bird trapping.

The European Commission is itself bound to end with egg on its face if the parliament approves amendments by the Socialist Group to a resolution by the Greens, Liberals and Communists on illegal hunting in Malta.

The Labour Party quoted Mr Dimas saying that what the Maltese government was doing was simply to refer to part of the Birds Directive which says that a country may ask for a derogation if it showed there was no alternative to spring hunting. It was from information sent by the Maltese government itself that the commission concluded that this was not so, Mr Dimas was reported saying.

What was more, he added, the Maltese government had made no request for a derogation and indeed was still dragging its feet to reply to the commission on the subject.

What was happening in Malta, Mr Dimas was quoted saying, was a perfect example of the wrong implementation of the Birds Directive.

Mr Dimas was reported saying that on 21 March, the Commission would decide if it was to widen legal procedures against Malta. At the end of the month, it was also going to send its representatives to ask for an explanation from the Maltese government about what it was doing. Mr Dimas said the Commission was prepared to see to the issue until it is sorted and was even ready to go to court.

The Labour Party said Mr Dimas’ declarations brought an immediate reaction from its three MEPs, who were taking part in the debate. Delegation head Louis Grech said all EU member governments were bound to ensure that environmental laws, including those relating to hunting, conformed with the EU’s directives and the accession treaty and with any other agreement which had been reached.

Explaining the amendments being moved by the Socialist Group, Mr Grech said that one of them called for more transparency and that both the Commission and the Maltese government should publish their technical positions on the subject, including the minutes of decisions taken.

MEP Joseph Muscat said it was now clear that the Maltese government had deceived environmentalists, hunters and trappers by trying to give the impression, before EU accession, that it had obtained everything for everyone.

MEP John Attard Montalto said it was now obvious that the hunting issue had been played for votes for all it was worth before EU accession. There was a problem of interpretation and once there was no agreement on the type of problem that existed, there could hardly be any agreement on a solution.

The Socialist Group, in tandem with the Maltese Labour MEPs, presented amendments to the resolution. Among others, the amendments deplore all sorts of illegal hunting, both in Malta and in other European countries.

The amendment, which will be uncomfortable for the European Commission, points out that prior to accession, the Maltese government had stated that it had negotiated a derogation on spring hunting with the Commission. The amendment expresses regret “that despite the fact that other political forces and segments of the civil society in Malta had challenged the Maltese government’s statements, the Commission opted to remain silent on the subject, thus leading to a potentially ambivalent situation.”

In his address, Nationalist MEP David Casa said the EP was discussing a resolution which amounted to breaking an agreement that was approved by the parliament and Malta.

The Strasbourg plenary session discussed spring hunting in Malta. Mr Casa said that what was promised during negotiations should be there to stay. He warned the parliament that if the resolution were approved, it would create “a very serious precedent”.

Mr Casa pointed out that the European Parliament was an institution that should instil trust in the citizens of Europe.

“This resolution is asking us to break an agreement that has been approved by both this parliament and the Maltese people,” he said.

The resolution went further than expressing itself in favour or against hunting, it would send a message to all European citizens that the European Union’s word was not binding, he argued.

“Resolutions like this one undermine the credibility of the European institutions,” he added.