Academics and former politicians have expressed divergent views on the proposal to introduce full-time MPs, which was floated by an independent commission tasked with reviewing MPs’ salaries and conditions.
Two retired politicians hailing from opposing camps agreed it was not a good idea. On the other hand a parliamentary historian and a public policy lecturer agreed that such a model should be seriously considered.
Michael Falzon, a former Nationalist minister, is completely against a full-time Parliament, saying the idea should not even be considered.
“It will only serve to attract the wrong people, as the most valid candidates who have excelled in their career will not dare to venture into politics,” he said.
The pool MPs with the expertise to run the country was already limited and having full-timers would make the situation worse.
Concerns were also raised from the other side of the political spectrum. “If politicians were to become full-time employees, they would resort to any means, under our system of voting for the candidate, to keep their post,” former Labour deputy leader Joe Brincat said.
He also subscribed to the view that potentially good candidates who were successful in their profession would keep away from the political arena.
Work experience away from the Chamber was invaluable to keep MPs in touch with the people, he added.
The head of the Public Policy Department at the University of Malta, George Vital Zammit, was in favour of a full-time parliament. “Apart from benefitting from a professional setup, parliament would also be more family-friendly as MPs with children would not have to attend sittings late in the evening,” he said.
Dr Zammit was surprised that in a recent interview both political leaders hinted they objected to the proposal.
“Somebody pledging to serve people through politics must be ready to pay the price if the electorate decides that they do not deserve another term,” he said.
However, he conceded that there should be a mechanism to ensure that MPs who lose their seat receive a severance package.
Parliamentary historian Godfrey Pirotta said the introduction of full-time MPs needed to be seriously considered within a wider debate of how to strengthen Parliament.
“Most probably if MPs remain part-time it would be difficult to achieve this objective. On the other hand having politicians whose livelihood depends exclusively on their parliamentary seat might attract candidates with dubious intentions.”
Former Prime Minister Alfred Sant, now an MEP, argued that before having this debate, the full content of the parliamentarian’s job should be determined to identify what kind of resources they would require.
“A full-time MP with no resources to work with would be in no position to act effectively,” he said, adding there was the risk of putting the cart before the horse.
He was disappointed that the media seemed uninterested in highlighting MPs’ good work.
“Unless they turn against their own party, the likelihood is that they will lose interest or their seat in the next elections or both.”
The best return for “practising bona fide politicians” was not cash but publicity, he said.