A few weeks before taking up office as European Commissioner, I had in September 2012, on behalf of the Nationalist government, published a white paper on further accountability of members of Parliament. Attached to the white paper was a Bill establishing the office of a Commissioner for Standards. The commissioner would monitor MPs’ activities, operations and behaviour to guarantee high ethical standards from our representatives.
The dissolution of Parliament a few months later prevented the Bill from being presented to Parliament.
Following the 2013 elections, nothing was heard of the Bill again. In September 2013 the Opposition exerted some pressure and presented a motion calling for the establishment of such an office. Finally, in May 2014, a Bill, practically a carbon copy of the one attached to the 2012 white paper, was published.
For two years it languished in the parliamentary archives, appearing on the parliamentary agenda without being debated; and it was only in May 2016 that it was debated and finally approved in March 2017 - three years after its publication.
This however was not the end of the saga.
The Act, called the Standards in Public Life Act 2017, ten months later, has not yet come into force. What is stopping the government from bringing this legislation into effect? The Act not only establishes the office of Commissioner for Standards but also contains a code of ethics for parliamentarians, and a complaints procedure to which a citizen has access if he thinks that any MP has abused of his position, in spite of parliamentary privilege.
The Act also sets up a Parliamentary Committee for Standards as a means of self-discipline, empowered to propose sanctions against offending parliamentarians with the final decision – as in all other legislatures - being taken by the House of Representatives in plenary session. The House may impose any penalty it may deem fit.
There is no excuse for this long procrastination, which is extremely convenient for the government
Inconvenient though such legislation may be for the powers that be, there is no excuse for this long procrastination, which is extremely convenient for the government. The legislation should be put into effect immediately - 10 months is long enough since its enactment. The gravity of this omission is compounded by the fact that the Act was published as a Bill four years ago.
In these times when public confidence in the institutions and in politicians is not as high as it should be, and populist movement across Europe are enticingly offering deceptively easy solutions to difficult problems, the need for the setting up of offices, mechanisms and procedures, which monitor the behaviour of the members of our highest institution and hold them to account is of paramount importance.
Once the Act comes into effect, the government and Opposition should seek to reach consensus on the name of the person to occupy such an important office, which according to the Act, its holder must be appointed by means of a resolution supported by two-thirds of all members of the House.
Putting the Act into force is not only a moral duty; it is a political and legal one for once its provisions enter into force, the two parties would be under pressure to reach a compromise on the name of a person to occupy such office.
This time round no political tricks should be played by the government - as happened with the Permanent Commission against Corruption - laying the blame on the Opposition for not nominating its candidate when the government had not nominated anyone itself.
Democracy and rule of law do not subsist only on the basis of elections every now and then; but they thrive when supporting and complementary institutions operate freely and independently.
The future changes to the Independence Constitution should aim at strengthening the institutions which we have. Rather than making rallying calls of “a second republic”, one should concentrate on a number of amendments which would strengthen the fight against corruption through independent institutions, if need be new ones; separate the prosecuting and legal counselling functions of the Attorney General, as proposed also by the Bonello Report in November 2013; and widen access to justice whenever the actions of the government or any public authority are in breach of the law.
The government should lead by example. It should put into effect a law proposed by itself and approved unanimously by the House. If it is not able to put into effect legislation already approved, how can it be credible on changes to the Constitution which are yet to come?
Tonio Borg is a former deputy prime minister and European commissioner.