Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1480753
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 2 OCTOBER 2022 9 INTERVIEW happen' by the people occupying these positions, come from political backgrounds. In Canada, for instance, it's someone who has an independ- ent background: usually from the judiciary, or similar areas. And in the UK – while I don't know, off- hand, whether this is stipulated in the law or not – the role is tra- ditionally occupied by someone who is not a former politician. I think that does lend a certain credibility to the role. Having said this: I also feel that the current Commissioner has done an excellent job, at the end of the day, in trying to bridge that challenge. And I also see that there is some merit, in having someone with a political back- ground in that role: in the sense that they would be able to under- stand, and appreciate, the sort of challenges that political leaders may face. I don't think, however, that it is necessary to have such a back- ground, in order to do an effec- tive job. In fact, I doubt it; I think you can have someone with a more independent background, in that role. But our small size may be problematic for other reasons. Among the OECD's recommen- dations are that: "MPs do not continue their private work unless in favour of national in- terest; do not act as lobbyists; do not enter into contractual employment with close family; do not have private interests in private corporations, etc.' Given that all Maltese MPs are part-timers (and the pay is not exactly very high) – how realis- tic is it, to expect people to give up their livelihood, in order to enter politics? First of all, when it came to Members of Parliament, we rec- ognised that it is not possible – at this time, and within the pres- ent system – for them to give up their primary occupation. I be- lieve that MPs in Malta are cur- rently paid a stipend of around E20,000; so asking them to give up their primary employment doesn't seem feasible, unless the entire system is reformed. So what we were trying to do, with those recommendations, is acknowledge that Maltese MPs are going to have second- ary employment – that is a real- ity – but these are specific areas where you have to be very care- ful... because conflicts of interest will arise; so even if secondary employment is inevitable, in this context, it should not be used as a 'carte blanche' to allow such conflicts of interest to go unman- aged. With regard to the specific rec- ommendation about 'entering in- to contractual employment with close family', however: I can see, now, that the wording may need to be clarified, to avoid misinter- pretation. What we are actually referring to, there, is the employment of close family members, in an MP's own office emphasised. It's not about 'being separately employed within a family company'... it's more about 'not appointing your own wife, or child, or close rela- tive', when hiring people within their own office. As for the one about 'not having interests in private corporations': that would be specific to a case where – for example – you have someone regulating the con- struction industry, who also has shares in a contruction compa- ny. Those shars would need to be relinquished: because otherwise, the MP would personally benefit from the decisions that he or she makes, which affect that indus- try... especially if the company were to be contracted by govern- ment. Again, these are the key risk-ar- eas that can come up. We recog- nise that MPs need to have sec- ondary employment; but we need to make sure that there is aware- ness of the conflicts of interest that can arise; and that such con- flicts are managed, when they do arise. Because at the end of the day, this will improve public confi- dence in the system; and it will also prevent the risk of abuse. Meanwhile, the OECD report places a lot on emphasis on the appointment of 'persons of trust': a designation which appears to have no actual le- gal basis, in Malta's public pro- curement legislation. This time, however, the situation appears to be very far from 'unique to Malta': in fact, there are similar systems in place almost every- where you look in Europe. Why, then, has there been so much focus on 'persons in trust' with- in Malta's system? Is it more of a problem here, than elsewhere? The reason we looked at this so much, in Malta, is that the number of persons of trust – as we understand it – is quite large. And there is the risk that it is be- ing used to circumvent the mer- it-based appointment process. Now: again, we understand that any minister, or parliamentary secretary, will naturally want to appoint people it can trust, to positions such as an 'advisor', or any comparable role. We recog- nise that that is a reality: you will always want to surround yourself with people you can rely on; who are close to you, and in whom you have confidence. But to use it more broadly – for instance, as a 'work-around', to avoid transparency in public appointments – that's when it becomes a problem. But I don't think it's a problem that is 'spe- cific to Malta'. If we were looking at another country, which used the same practice... we would be saying the same thing: i.e., that this is a big concern; that the country needs to adopt a more merit-based system; and so on. So if we're making more noise about it, in malta... it is simply be- cause Malta is the country we are working with, right now. Having said this: I can't say that it has come up as a major issue, for any of the other European countries we have looked at. But that may also be because we usu- ally look at the public sector – the civil service itself – and not at the more political side of things. This, perhaps, is what makes Malta more of a 'unique' situa- tion... at least, from our focus. But as we have said on many occasions before, throughout this project: we do recognise that a lot of progress has been made, in Malta. And we also recognise that it is a difficult situation: there is a culture change that needs to hap- pen, to adjust to these different ways of looking at ethics and in- tegrity; and there have also been protests by citizens, demanding more accountability from their government. We see this as something that will be beneficial to everyone: even to MPs, ministers and par- liamentary secretaries.. who might see all this as a 'straitjack- et'; but really, it is to help them know that they can carry out their job effectively, and efficient- ly; so that - when there is scrutiny – they can say, "Hey, we've abid- ed by the rules; we've done what we're supposed to do..."; and that, I think, can help address some of these ongoing challenges. PHOTO: JAMES BIANCHI / MALTATODAY