The White Paper on placing more responsibility and accountability on Members of Parliament sets out certain proposals that I hope will be the subject of mature debate.
Following the example of other legislatures, particularly the UK House of Commons, it is being proposed that a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will act as ethics watchdog on our parliamentarians.
This office will be completely independent of government to the extent that, as is the case with the Ombudsman and the Auditor General, the office holder’s nomination must be supported by a two-thirds majority of MPs, which in practice means by both sides of the House.
The Commissioner will enjoy security of tenure on the same lines as a member of the judiciary.
One must make it clear that the subject matter here is disciplinary proceedings, which have ultimately to be decided upon by the House. In the House of Commons, the Commissioner reports to the House Committee on Standards and Privileges, and the disciplinary measure is ultimately endorsed by the House.
Naturally if the misconduct amounts to the commission of an offence, the matter is referred to the police for prosecution in court.
If the current proposal is accepted, any person who feels aggrieved by an MP’s behaviour, such as in the abuse of parliamentary privilege to tarnish the reputation of an innocent citizen, the Commissioner will have the right to investigate such complaints and recommend disciplinary measures
Before the publication of the White Paper, studies were conducted to learn from the experiences of other legislatures.
It was found that all retain the final say on disciplinary procedure though it would indeed be political madness to ignore the reports of commissioners or independent parliamentary officials whose nomination has been endorsed by parliamentarians themselves.
As Professor D.D. Basu, an eminent Indian constitutional expert, remarked: “Elected representatives are not placed above the law by way of parliamentary privilege; they are simply granted certain advantages and basic exemptions from legal process in order that the House may function independently, efficiently and fearlessly.
“This is in the interest of the nation as a whole... it is difficult to digest that in case of abuse or misuse of such privilege by any Member, no action can be taken by the legislature, the parent body.”
For the first time in Malta’s constitutional history, disciplinary proceedings will start as a result of an independent officer’s investigation. This will give teeth to the current Code of Ethics with regard to enforcement.
Abuse of parliamentary privilege, incorrect or misleading statements in one’s declaration of financial assets and income, as well as behaviour unbecoming of an Member of Parliament can be investigated by an officer who will have the power to recommend disciplinary action, without prejudice to any other proceedings before any court should the MP’s misconduct amount to a criminal offence.
This proposal is due to the fact that our House has reached a level of political maturity that permits the creation of an independent mechanism of ethics enforcement.
Above all, the White Paper is not the result of some heinous incident similar to those that provoked the creation of similar mechanisms in other countries, such as the controversy in the UK in 1995 over the scandal of MPs getting paid to ask parliamentary questions, or the improper use of parliamentary allowances beyond the parameters of their scope, which led to the resignation of UK Speaker Michael Martin a few years ago.
The British model has been adopted because it fits like a glove with our parliamentary tradition and practice and because as with most things British, it is reasonable, moderate and efficient.
The model is moulded to allow the monitoring of an MP’s behaviour without obstructing the proper exercise of his functions.
Members of Parliament should not shun scrutiny. At a time when trust in public authorities is on the wane all over Europe, we should be ahead of public opinion and not behind it. That is to say, we should satisfy the aspirations of the public for democratic institutions rather than act in a reactive way to any particular mishap.
As Tip O’Neill, one of the longest serving Speakers of the US House of Representatives, wrote in his book All Politics is Local: “The ethics of politics has changed. Politicians who don’t realise that are making trouble for themselves if they don’t cross every ‘t’ and dot every ‘i’.”
The proposals in the White Paper are not etched in stone. A healthy debate should ensure that they meet the approval of all members of the House and that a consensus is reached to give the ultimate product further credibility.
The Government will seriously consider any proposal in this regard and will engage in intensive and fruitful dialogue with the Opposition to achieve such a consensus.
The author is Minister of Foreign Affairs.