Should we have full-time MPs?

Most Members of Parliament across the world give up their profession to take up a career in politics. They work full-time as MPs, earn a hefty salary and receive generous benefits which include travelling and second home allowances.

On the other hand, unless holding a cabinet post, Maltese representatives generally keep on practising their professions, look after their businesses or carry on with their day jobs whatever the case may be. The parliamentary remuneration of less than €20,000 is surely not enough for MPs to live on, hardly enough to cover the wedding gifts! Yet we expect our representatives to be available and work in their constituency as if they are full-timers. We tend to forget that most MPs have a family to look after and day commitments to attend to in order to pay their bills. Should we change the system? Should MPs become full-timers? What are the pros and cons of such a switch?

For many years I advocated a system of full-time representatives as I always believed that MPs’ constituency workload could not be looked after properly unless the work is carried out on a full-time basis. Representatives and those aspiring to become one are generally in continuous contact with the electorate by visiting them in their homes and/or through their availability to meet them at their constituency offices. The follow-up work involved after meeting people is not easy and is time consuming. People ask for all sorts of assistance, from finding employment to assistance in matters relating to government departments. MPs spend hours seeing people and more hours working on individual cases.

This is not only a Maltese phenomenon. Irish representatives spend more time than their Maltese counterparts on constituents’ matters. The British MPs too hold weekly surgeries to meet constituents as do the French. The only difference between these representatives and the Maltese is that the former are all full-timers and earn an adequate salary while the Maltese have to perform the same duties after their normal working hours. Those MPs who have voiced their opinion in favour of them becoming full-timers may therefore have a point.

There is, however, another side of the coin and which I have overlooked until it was recently brought to my attention by a senior member of the House. A number of MPs who gave up their profession to take up a ministerial post have found it hard to return to their profession when they were not re-appointed in Cabinet. If MPs were to give up their profession they would be risking the loss of their clientele to take up a full-time role as representative. The problem arises if they fail to get elected in a subsequent election. Parliamentarians depend on the electorate. They can be voted in or voted out, but in any case their domestic responsibility remains. Like the rest of us, they have families to look after and it might therefore be unwise for professionals to risk a profession for a temporary post.

If this issue is ever inserted on the Parliament’s agenda, MPs ought to look beyond the current legislature and ask themselves what happens if one is not elected in the following election. If Parliament opts to consider having full-time MPs, then it might be wise to devise a system whereby former parliamentarians are looked after. However accommodating this may sound, the truth is that it is not fair on MPs who give up a profession to serve the people to suffer hardship when they fail to get re-elected. A number of former ministers from both sides of the House have already tasted such a sour experience.

Alternatively we can stick with the current arrangement and save the taxpayers a few millions euros. The system seems to have worked well for almost a century and there is no shortage of candidates in elections. The remuneration issue does not seem to be keeping away individuals from seeking election.

Should we have full-time MPs? Perhaps it is unwise to give an unqualified answer to this question.