A Council of Europe report issued today has pointed to loopholes in the current rules of conduct of MPs. It also issued a set of recommendations - see http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150624/local/malta-urged-to-take-measures-to-strengthen-ethics-prevent-corruption.573882
The Greco group observed that at present, an MP, who has professional interest, including work interest consultancy, management or any form of connection, pecuniary or otherwise, with persons, groups or companies, that have a direct interest in legislation before the House, must declare his/her interest in the House, at the first opportunity, before a vote is taken on the second reading of a bill.
Standing Orders also state that an MP cannot vote in the House upon a question, in which s/he has a “direct pecuniary interest”. The House is entitled to suspend a member who has breached the aforementioned rule.
There is, however, no definition of “direct pecuniary interest” nor has there been any written and circulated interpretations that would provide guidance to MPs
There are no outside employment, ownership or leading person restrictions save a narrow provision in the Constitution relating to positions with entities with government contracts.
Rather, there are some requirements to declare annually certain information about outside employment/business interests, i.e. directorships or other official positions in commercial companies, associations, boards, co-operatives and other forms of pecuniary interests. There are no post-employment restrictions either.
MPs cannot receive any remuneration or compensation, under whatever form, for his/her work as a member of the House of Representatives, other than the official remuneration to which an MP is entitled.
But there is no corresponding requirement to disclose outside sources and amounts of income received by them, only a requirement that the member report his/her profession, or if employed, the name of the employer.
However, an MP can accept an honorarium for a speech, writing or publication, or other similar activity, from any person, organisation or company so long as the amount is not in excess of the usual and customary value for such services.
In practice, Greco said, these two provisions could be difficult to reconcile when particularly a speech, but also an article or publication specifically about ongoing activities of Parliament could be considered a part of one’s expected parliamentary duties, but the rules allowed a member to accept an honorarium in relation to these activities.
There is currently is no guidance regarding topics that might be so closely connected to parliamentary duties as to raise questions about the purpose of the payment. Further, an honorarium can be paid by a party that has a direct pecuniary interest in a legislative matter.
Finally, the current financial declaration system does not require the member to report the source and amount of an individual honorarium as a separate entry, so there is no potential for parliamentary or public oversight of who is paying which member for what and how much.
GIFTS
Greco noted that the code of ethics of MPs has a broad gifts restriction: members are prohibited from accepting gifts from any person or persons, groups or companies that have or had any direct or indirect interest in legislation before the House
However, the Code contains no definition of a gift. This could easily raise reasonable questions in context with other provisions, specifically provisions that still allow those with direct interests in legislation to pay honoraria and to pay for foreign travel of the member (both voluntary payments).
These apparent anomalies exist in the context that a member can also be employed by persons or companies that have direct interests in legislation. Gifts are not required to be reported. Foreign travel is required to be reported to the Speaker and there is a separate section on the annual financial/activity declaration form for that.