MP suggests creation of parliamentary judiciary committee

Labour MP Jose` Herrera said yesterday that parliament should consider setting up its own permanent parliamentary judiciary committee to investigate corruption.

He was speaking during the debate on the Civil Code (amendment) Bill. The bill introduces the right for one to claim compensation for damages caused by corruption.

Dr Herrera said that although this bill was welcome, there had been nothing in Maltese legislation to date which actually prevented anyone from seeking damages from acts of corruption. This bill, however, clarified what had been a grey area.

He was sure that this bill and the recent amendments to the Criminal Code would help deter corruption.

Referring to aspects of the bill, Dr Herrera said people who paid bribes in order to get some form of advantage should not be able to claim damages if they did not get the advantage they sought.

He said he disagreed with speakers in the debate who argued against having prescription for corruption cases. Perhaps the prescriptive period provided in this bill could be extended to 10 years, but beyond that it would be difficult to prove a case.

The Labour MP said damages for cases of corruption should include compensation for moral damages up to a certain amount. There could be cases where people who revealed corruption suffered hardship, such as transfers at their place of work, without incurring financial loss.

Dr Herrera said the former Labour government had intended to fight corruption by appointing a super magistrate to investigate allegations. This proposal needed to be revisited by the present government.

The way the Commission for the investigation of corruption was appointed and the way in which it operated was certainly unsatisfactory, especially as it was answerable to the prime minister and its members did not enjoy security of tenure.

Perhaps it was time for Malta to have its own permanent parliamentary judiciary committee to investigate corruption as was the case in many other countries.

One needed to distinguish between acts of corruption and acts of malpractice. Acts of malpractice were not necessarily acts of corruption. Malta lacked the structures and institutions it needed to give a remedy to those who suffered injustices due to maladministration. There were no administrative courts in Malta, a situation which could be changed either by extending the powers of the courts, or through the setting up of administrative tribunals headed by judges.

Dr Herrera said the bill should also consider the harm done to people who were victims of false and malicious allegations of corruption. Such false allegations caused severe moral and financial damages, even ruining people`s careers. Compensation given in terms of the libel laws was too low, with the maximum being Lm5,000. This was not a strong enough deterrent and the situation should be rectified even as the freedom of the press to make fair comment was protected.

Dr Herrera said he was against the office of the Ombudsman being entrenched in the Constitution, as had been suggested. Although the Ombudsman was doing good work, this was still a relatively new institution which should be given time to mature. Furthermore one still needed to see whether the powers of the Ombudsman could be extended.

It would not be right to entrench this institution as it was now, preventing future governments from being able to review the situation. Some time should be allowed to go by, after which the institution should be analysed in detail.

What was certainly needed was for the Office of the Ombudsman to be complemented by a judicial institution which could give compensation for administrative injustices.

Furthermore, people who committed injustices or corruption needed to be held to account. The Injustices Tribunal was upholding many cases of injustice, yet no one was being held accountable, whether politically or in government departments.

Ms Marie-Louise Coleiro (MLP) observed that this bill included provisions to protect people who reported corruption. This was a positive step, but Malta needed a proper "Whistle Blowers Act" on the lines of the law in the United States.

She insisted that corruption would only be prevented if the people knew their rights, if public and private organisations were not excessively bureaucratic and if they were transparent in their operation.

Ms Coleiro said this bill reproduced the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption, yet that only provided a framework within which member states needed to work according to their circumstances.

A Council of Europe resolution in the year 2000 had urged national parliaments to ensure that state institutions were so transparent and accountable as to be able to withstand and expose corruption.

Did the people see the Planning Authority as transparent and accountable? She did not think so. The people became suspicious when some developments were approved and others prohibited in identical circumstances. Indeed, even replies to parliamentary questions on the PA and other institutions were vague.

The Council of Europe resolution said laws needed to be clear on areas such as the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns. This was certainly a field to which Malta needed to give greater attention.

The council document also emphasised the importance of freedom of the press and freedom of information and expression. That was not always the case in Malta. One only needed to see the storm that arose against the former permanent secretary at the agriculture ministry, Mr Gauci Borda, after comments which were critical of government operations. Malta was also lacking in consumer organisations who could serve as watchdogs on behalf of consumers. Was the independence of the judiciary adequately protected?

Another important area was the need for accountability. She felt that local councils were not sufficiently accountable. There was also need for transparency in the way non-governmental organisations operated, especially in the way they used funds received from the government or through public collection.

Concluding, Ms Coleiro said the Council of Europe resolution also called for regulations to be simplified to avoid the possibility of abuse. In Malta, social security laws and regulations were confusing and subject to interpretation, he said.

Notary Charles Mangion (MLP) observed that in terms of this bill, a contract signed as a result of corruption could be annulled. This was good in principle, but one would have to consider the impact of such a decision on third parties, such as bona fide subcontractors who were awarded work by the contractor who would have been awarded a contract because of an act of corruption. Such third parties too should at least be able to take action for damages.

He said that abuses by public authorities, such as unjustified delays in the ordinary transfer of permits or the provision of services, caused hardship and damages and the people should be compensated for such inefficiency. Such cases, as well as others such as distortion of performance, also harmed the economy.

Mr Evarist Bartolo (MLP) said it was everyone`s duty to speak out against corruption. In this context, it was wrong for the Church not to use its influence by speaking on morality in public life. One sometimes got the impression that the commandments applied only to private life.

He insisted that a system needed to be put in place for political parties to give an account of donations they received, thus removing suspicion of wrongdoing.

It was good that the Office of the Auditor-General enjoyed respect, particularly as he was an officer of the House. But there was need for reports drawn up by the auditor to be acted upon. For example, his reports on squandering on government transport had not been acted upon. There could be corruption at a micro level in cases such as this, such as the way cars were rented.

Corruption was not just wrong criminally and morally, but it also had an economic impact. The economy suffered when public funds were squandered. In this context, internal auditing of government departments should not be carried out by staff answerable to the departments themselves

The fight against corruption had to be fought on several fronts. This bill was one such front. Another was freedom of information. Corruption thrived on secrecy, and Malta therefore needed a Freedom of Information Act, giving the people access to documents and information. Otherwise the institutions could continue to abuse because information contained in their files would stay hidden. For example, questions raised recently about the disappearance of Lino Cauchi had remained unanswered.

One also needed to act against laundering of corruption such as through official documents by notaries and lawyers.

Mr Bartolo said he could not understand how damages awarded to Labour ministers who won libel cases were, more often than not, lower than damages won by Nationalist ministers for less serious cases.

The courts had an important role too in fighting corruption and abuse. Respect was not automatic and was won by one`s actions. Judges and magistrates should set a good example through consistency in their sentences. They should also have a register of their interests.

Mr Bartolo said people sometimes complained of politicians being corrupt, when they would have elected them. Unfortunately, for many, corruption was bad only when they did not benefit from it. While it was good to strengthen the institutions to fight corruption, this was an issue which also had to be seen from the moral aspect of how one lived.

The debate continues today.