I find the Foreign Ministry's report and press release, issued after the publication of British Public Records Office documents exposing a Maltese diplomat's bout of "spying", as further proof of our government's superciliousness.

For those not in the know, this is about letters and reports, which show that Ives de Barro - working at the Maltese Embassy in Libya in 1971 - was giving the British government information about Malta's private talks with Libya. This, at a time when the Maltese government was disputing the financial and defence agreements with Britain, while negotiating with Libya on financial aid. Thus, the British had every interest to know what Malta and Libya were discussing. By disclosing confidential information (the said documents were all marked "Confidential - UK eyes only"), Mr de Barro was therefore helping the British set their position vis-à-vis the Maltese government.

What was our Foreign Ministry's reaction to these revelations? Minister Tonio Borg asked his permanent secretary to investigate and draw up a report on the matter. The minister thus saw it proper to give the task to the top person in his ministry, as opposed to someone independent of it.

Still, I was hoping that Cecilia Attard Pirotta (the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office and former PN councillor) would rise above politics and maybe come up with a report that is loyal to the issues in question, which although simple, are profound. They go to the heart of the efforts made to defend our country's position at a time when critical discussions were taking place between Malta and Britain.

But it was not to be. As investigator, Ms Attard Pirotta judged the content of these Public Records Office documents and tried to minimise their value by giving the impression that they are not worth much. In her judgement, she went as far as to report that most of what Mr de Barro revealed to the British was his "personal opinion". Also, that the information "was not sensitive" and, according to the press release issued by the ministry, it was merely "personal opinion about the situation regarding Malta's relations with Britain in the light of commercial relations between Malta and Libya".

Let's now look at some examples from the documents in question to see whether this is correct.

One British diplomat, a Mr Hannam, reported thus: "I met de Barro of the Maltese Embassy in the street on November 22 and asked him how the recent talks had gone between the Maltese delegation and the Libyans. De Barro said that the conversations had only lasted three days. The first meeting was on November 15... there had been difficulty in getting down to business because of the approach of the Id. The next two meetings had, however, produced a useful discussion on the opening for Maltese contractors in the Libyan market.

"De Barro said that the Libyans had shown themselves unwilling to depart from their normal conditions of contract in order to give preference to the Maltese... De Barro gave me to understand that, as far as he knew, political matters had not been discussed during the talks."

How useful for the British government to be armed - before talks with the Maltese government - with the knowledge (not opinion) of what Libya would be, or would not be, offering!

Another British diplomat, one Mr Haskell, stated: "I called on Mr de Barro to ask about the results of Dr Buttigieg's (Deputy Prime Minister) visit to Tripoli... The Maltese government were very unhappy that the Libyan navy had broken their existing connection with Malta Dry Docks... they had asked the Libyans to commit themselves to resuming their patronage of Malta Dry Docks for the future but the Libyans had declined to do this."

How the British must have relished being privy to this fact (not opinion) while negotiating with Malta! They must have been extremely grateful to Mr de Barro.

Another sample of priceless information is the following, as reported by a Mr Sharp: "Mr de Barro told me last night that one of his first jobs when he became Chargé d'Affaires would be to ask for an interview with Major Jalud in an effort to chivvy the Libyans into paying up the remainder of a sum of stg250,000 they had promised Malta in July. Mr de Barro said that so far they had only made two payments, one of stg70,000 and the other of stg18,000. He said payments had been made on a bank to bank basis."

Now let's see what our Ms Attard Pirotta had to say on this: "The revelation of this information, as well as information relating to the part payments made, could have been avoided and is indeed unfortunate" (unfortunate?) but "it cannot be deduced... that Mr de Barro was a mole.." Oh, really? What was he then? Does that mean that Maltese diplomats may say what they want to foreign diplomats in such critical moments?

But, not to worry, we have Mr de Barro's own word that it's allright: "Mr de Barro's part-time contract of service (with the Foreign Office) expired on August 31, 2009. Mr de Barro, who today is 75 years old, did not seek an extension, he proclaimed his innocence and averred once again that he did not reveal any damaging information to anyone 38 years ago". Amen.

And so Ms Pirotta simultaneously acted as prosecutor, defence, judge and absolver of sins; while our Foreign Minister doesn't even condemn Mr de Barro's despicable acts. The Foreign Office instead issues a deceptive press release stating that Mr de Barro was merely expressing his opinion.

As Margaret Thatcher had famously put it: "Is he one of us?".... Then it's OK.

Dr Dalli is Labour's shadow minister for the public sector and government investments.