Proposals which would forbid high-ranking public officials from accepting jobs with private firms in the sectors they dealt with in prior years prompted lively debate in Parliament on Tuesday evening.
Opposition MP Karol Aquilina said that the Court of Appeals had already established that such "revolving door" provisions in the private sector were illegal. The problem was one which urgently needed to be tackled, he said, but not by imposing such conditions.
Parliamentary Secretary Julia Farrugia Portelli disputed that argument. "Revolving door" clauses in contracts were reasonable and voluntary, she said, and although a decision by the Court of Magistrates had decided against them, that decision was later overturned by a Court of Appeals. One needed only to speak to private sector workers to find out how common such clauses actually were, she added, and many other countries had even more restrictive provisions in force.
A Public Administration Bill being debated in Parliament would bar high-ranking public servants for two years from accepting jobs with companies with which they would have had dealings in the prior five years. An ad-hoc board would be established in order to identify the roles subject to this condition, and a penalty of three years' pay could be imposed for breaching this condition.
Dr Aquilina criticised the Bill for giving government officials and appointees more power and noted that trade unions had strongly criticised the lack of consultation preceding its discussion in parliament.
He said that the Bill was a wholesale rewrite of the existing act and argued that it was parliamentary practice to amend, rather than rewrite legislation.
Opposition MP Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici made several proposals, calling for the addressing of the power vacuums which often arose when a permanent secretary was removed or otherwise left office. The present situation often saw two different officials vying for the moral authority to lead the administration of a particular ministry in the absence of their former superior civil servant, he said.
He added that the Opposition was "positive" about the bill - despite the fact that a division would later be called before a second reading could be granted – and emphasised that the amendments kept the vast majority of the original Public Administration Act’s provisions. However, he insisted that the Bill needed to be implemented holistically and intelligently for its objectives to be attained.
Opposition MP Godfrey Farrugia said political interference in the public sector increased from one legislature to the other, blurring the lines between the civil service and the government. He reiterated calls to create a register of lobbyists.
Winding up, Ms Farrugia Portelli said the Prime Minister had advised the House that the bill would be tabled weeks prior. Furthermore, she countered the claim that it was normal parliamentary practice to amend, rather than rewrite, extant legislation by making reference to several bills which had received similar treatment during Nationalist administrations.
The code of ethics which would be introduced aimed to avoid discrimination and to sustain impartiality, she said, to the contrary of the impression given by Opposition speakers. The values which the Bill sought to establish were, furthermore, clearly spelled out.
A division on whether to grant the Bill a second reading will be held this afternoon during Parliament’s last session before the Christmas recess.
On Tuesday evening, the Social Affairs Committee approved a report on the Good Samaritan Bill, which chairperson Etienne Grech will be presenting following the Christmas recess.
The National Audit Office Accounts Committee also discussed various technical aspects of the transfer of a parcel of land to International Hotel Investments (IHI) plc. MPs are due to vote on whether to authorise the concession during the Committee’s next meeting.