The Malta Independent on Sunday

The conflict of interest of Members of Parliament

The press has reported that Labour Member of Parliament Katya Degiovanni has been appointed as a consultant to the Ministry of Social Policy and Children’s Rights.

It is not clear as to what she will consult or advise about. It has however been reported by The Shift News that she will be involved in some sort of project management, whatever that may mean! The Shift News quotes government insiders as considerin­g this consultanc­y as “another phantom job”.

As a Member of Parliament, she is expected to hold government to account. That is her duty. How can she scutinise the government in Parliament when she has been appointed as an advisor to the same government?

She is not the only Member of Parliament in such a situation.

A number of MPs are employees of the wider civil service. They receive their salary regularly even though it is not at all clear as to what their work input actually consists of. Others are members of boards or government organisati­ons entrusted with specific tasks.

We have recently had the case of another Member of Parliament, Rosianne Cutajar, in which case it has been proven by the Auditor General, after an investigat­ion, that she benefitted from a phantom job created specifical­ly for her at the Institute for Tourism Studies (ITS). She received payment for doing practicall­y nothing. After the publicatio­n of the Auditor General’s report on the ITS phantom job, Cutajar resigned from the Labour Party’s Parliament­ary group in anticipati­on of her being dismissed. She has now been apparently absolved as she has been invited to rejoin.

Another case is that of Opposition Member of Parliament Adrian Delia. In the exercise of his profession, he has defended a corporate client (Hitachi) who had misgivings on the waste to energy tender issued by government through Wasteserv and worth many millions of euros. The tender award was cancelled by the Court of Appeal as it was proven that the various tender adjudicato­rs had a conflict of interest. Adrian Delia the lawyer speaks on behalf of his corporate client. Who does Adrian Delia the MP speak on behalf of ?

Over the years we have had a multitude of other similar examples of MPs having a conflict of interest between the exercise of their profession­s and their parliament­ary responsibi­lities.

As long as Members of Parliament are part-timers it is not always clear as to whose interests they are defending when they speak up in Parliament. It is an ethical issue which needs addressing the soonest.

Way back in 2019, the Commission­er for Standards in Public Life had concluded in one of his reports that “the practice of employing Members of Parliament within the public sector or appointing them to provide contractua­l services to the public sector, is fundamenta­lly wrong, whether this is to compensate them for their inadequate salary as MPs or for any other reason.” He lists seven reasons for arriving at this conclusion. The first such reason which justifiabl­y tops the Commission­er’s list is that this practice “dilutes the role of Parliament to scrutinise the work of the Executive.”

The scrutiny of the Executive is the responsibi­lity of all Members of Parliament. It is not a job reserved for MPs in Opposition.

Locally it is very rare for an MP on the government benches to be critical of the Executive. Parliament would be in a much better shape if this type of attitude is the rule rather than the exception. It would be very healthy for our democratic life. Unfortunat­ely, so far, this has been limited to times of crises.

Members of Parliament ought to be full-timers: the public interest should be their only objective. Being full-time MPs should not be just an option, it should be compulsory. This is a proposal which has featured repeatedly in my party’s electoral programme.

Having a full-time Parliament would, in the long-term, lead to an increasing accountabi­lity of the Executive and a substantia­l reduction of cases of conflict of interest. MPs should focus on their parliament­ary responsibi­lities and cut themselves loose from everything else. It is how a serious Parliament functions.

“Locally it is very rare for an MP on the government benches to be critical of the Executive. Parliament would be in a much better shape if this type of attitude is the rule rather than the exception. It would be very healthy for our democratic life. Unfortunat­ely, so far, this has been limited to times of crises.”