A meeting of the Select Committee on the Appointment of a Commissioner a on Standards, Ethics and Proper Behaviour in Public Life resulted in disagreement between Foreign Affairs Minister George Vella and Opposition MP Francis Zammit Dimech.
The two engaged in arguments when Dr Vella proposed that ‘ministers and parliamentary secretaries’ in the Bill be replaced with ‘members of the House of Representatives’ to stress the point that the Commissioner on Standards, Ethics and Proper Behaviour in Public Life should only censure ministers’ improper behaviour and not his administrative decisions.
Francis Zammit Dimech disagreed with such a proposal, arguing that if one removed the focus on the members of the executive, one would be sending a negative message. He said that the wording should remain the same.
Dr Vella said that the Commissioner should not censure the political decisions of a minister. A minister’s policy, whether good or bad, should not fall within the remit of the Commissioner but within the remit of the Prime Minister, who had appointed the minister. Otherwise, one would be establishing a higher authority.
Nationalist MP Ryan Callus said that ministers were included in the wording of the law to include them within the remit of the Commissioner as otherwise no one would be able to ensure abidance by the Code of Ethics. One should not limit the Commissioner’s remit, he said.
Dr Vella said that a minister’s failure to attend Parliament meetings and to answer parliamentary questions would fall under the competence of the Commissioner. However the Commissioner should not be able to censure the minister’s administrative decisions.
Dr Zammit Dimech said that the Committee had agreed on the wording of the law and that ministers would be included in the Bill.
Dr Vella said that if the Commissioner was able to censure a minister’s administrative decisions, this would result in a dictatorship.
Dr Zammit Dimech argued that if the Committee could not agree, it should adjourn immediately. This was agreed to by Dr Vella, however, Speaker of the House and Chairman of the Committee Anglu Farrugia asked whether the Bill could include two different schedules that would apply for ministers and for Members of Parliament.
Dr Vella reiterated that a minister was a Member of Parliament and if he breached ethics, the Commissioner would be entitled to investigate. However, if he could regulate administrative decisions, the Commissioner would effectively regulate Malta.
Mr Callus said that one should not have a Code of Ethics applicable to Members of Parliament and not to members of the executive. However, Dr Farrugia reminded Mr Callus that Dr Vella was not saying so.
Dr Vella said that the government sought to include persons of trust as well and that no one should throw mud on the government’s good intentions.
Dr Farrugia said that there should be an understanding that the Commissioner’s remit did not extend to a minister’s administrative decisions.
Dr Zammit Dimech reiterated his position that he did not agree with removing ministers from the Bill’s definition clause. He said that if one Code would be applicable to everyone, then the definition clause should include ministers as well.
Donatella Frendo Dimech, a lawyer from the Attorney General’s Office, said that the Bill provided that the Commissioner’s power was to investigate allegations on persons, on any matter, who breached statutory or ethical duties.
Dr Zammit Dimech insisted that one should not remove ministers from the definition clause.
Meanwhile, Dr Vella said that it was not true that one would be removing ministers from the definition clause: ministers would fall within the scope of the law as Members of Parliament. He argued that if there was no good faith to agree on this matter, the Committee should adjourn.
Dr Farrugia said that the Bill was clear and spoke on ethical breaches. Labour MP Justyne Caruana asked why were the Opposition MPs finding difficulties if such Bill was clear. The government was distinguishing between scrutiny and control.
Speaking on other provisions, Dr Vella said that the Commissioner should not investigate matters retrospectively. Meanwhile, Dr Zammit Dimech said that this would send a negative message to the public.
Both agreed that the Commissioner should have a timeframe within which he should conclude investigations.