Parliament Speaker Anġlu Farrugia is not alien to controversy. In an interview with The Sunday Times of Malta he admitted he was “absolutely not satisfied” with the annual declaration of assets MPs submit.
These declarations, required by the MPs’ code of ethics and by law, should include “immovable property, shares in commercial companies, investments, money deposited in banks, any other form of pecuniary interest and directorships”. These statements are kept by the Speaker and should “be open to inspection by the public”.
Complaining he cannot question the declarations or even comment about them, Dr Farrugia did point out there are “questions” about them “that deserve an answer”. Such a statement is indeed worrying. It is also of grave concern that a comment coming from such a high-ranking public officer is met by silence from the parliamentarians themselves and also society at large.
Surveys indicate that the Maltese people’s trust in Parliament fluctuates around the 50 per cent mark. Although this may look positive when compared to the European average and other local institutions, including political parties, the findings demonstrate that the country’s highest institution does not enjoy the trust of almost half the population.
Dr Farrugia himself acknowledged that there is great scope for more trust in Parliament, saying that transparency and accountability will contribute towards this goal. Of course, the best remedy can be provided by parliamentarians themselves.
It is worrying to note that no progress has been made on the Bill promoting standards in public life, although this has been on the Parliament’s agenda for almost a year and a half. The proposed law provides for a Commissioner of Standards in Public Life with the remit to investigate allegations of breaches of the ethical duties or improper behaviour by ministers, parliamentary secretaries, members of Parliament, employees in positions of trust and government consultants.
The commissioner would also examine and verify declarations relating to the income, assets and other interests.
One is justified to ask what is holding the debate and the enactment of this Bill.
Parliamentarians must surely realise they stand to gain when their trust ratings improve. They owe it to themselves and to the people who elected them.
Legal instruments are only one element of the measures indicated by the Speaker. An overall improvement in the manner parliamentarians speak to and about each other will surely contribute to enhance the people’s trust.
Dr Farrugia worked hard for the introduction of live TV broadcasts of parliamentary debates. One unintended outcome has been the change in atmosphere since this measure was introduced in May. There may have been instances where MPs behaved in a certain manner mainly because of the cameras. In July, the Prime Minster noted that Parliament became “less amicable” since live transmissions started.
Dr Farrugia deems this a transitory phenomenon. We can only hope so. Any disrespectful behaviour damages all parliamentarians and further erodes people’s trust. It is difficult to trust people who constantly appear to be at each other’s throats and who just want to talk rather than listen.
Dr Farrugia’s vision for parliamentary autonomy deserves support. It is an essential component of democracy.
More trust and respect will certainly contribute towards stronger public support for such autonomy.