Anna Mallia | Wednesday, 14 October 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

The official website of the Maltese Parliament boasts a Code of Ethics for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, and a Code of Ethics for Members of Parliament.
But since the hot seat last week was taken by Minister Tonio Fenech, I thought of bringing to your attention what is this code all about, so that you can then decide for yourselves whether Minister Fenech and his boss, the Prime Minister, are right in saying that there is nothing wrong in accepting a free ride.

The role of the Prime Minister is to ensure that the Cabinet adheres to this code, and not to protect those who flout it. The Prime Minister saw nothing wrong in a minister accepting a free trip to Spain to watch an Arsenal game. We do not know if accommodation, meals and the game ticket came with the free trip either.
Even so, the Prime Minister sees nothing wrong and no breach of the code of ethics in this. However Regulation number 58 of the code specifically states that:
“No Minister should accept gifts or services such as might be deemed to create an obligation, real or imaginary. The same rule applies to the spouse of a Minister and to his minor children.”

The Code of Ethics was established by this party in government in January 1994, and it did away with the publication of assets and liabilities which all the ministers and parliamentary secretaries were obliged to do until then: a measure which was introduced when Labour was in government. Even then, we all took their declarations with a pinch of salt, and were it not for one or two members, the rest were all living in sheer poverty and saved only by the blessings by their wife’s fortunes.

But this Code of Ethics is very often ignored, and it is a shame that it continues to embrace the rubber stamp of our Parliament when it is being constantly ignored. It is a shame that Parliament does not check the executive or the government as is commonly known to ensure that the code is being adhered to and it is not just a piece of paper.
Section 28 of the Code reads: “Any Minister who needs to go abroad, for any reason, requires the approval of the Prime Minister. The letter to the Prime Minister should include the reasons for the visit and the list of countries to be visited.”
So any Minister who goes abroad on a private visit must write a letter to the Prime Minister requesting approval. If the Prime Minister is receiving such letters we do not know.

Section 39: “Ministers should remember that the giving and receiving of gifts to and from Governments, organizations or persons is a delicate matter.”

Section 48. “Within two months from his appointment and not later than the month of March of each year, every Minister should deposit with the Secretary to the Cabinet a declaration listing: (a) the immovable property of the Minister or in relation to which he has some form of title; (b) shares, bonds or other interests which he may have in a company or partnership, public or private; (c) the sum total of money he had deposited in banks; (d) directorships or other offices he holds; (e) his income in the previous year; (f) the sum total of loans he may have received which are still outstanding.”

What happens to these declarations? Are they a secret? Is it not in the public interest for them to be divulged? The man in the street therefore wonders what is the purpose of this obligation when it is a declaration made from the Cabinet to the Cabinet, with no system of checks and balances wherein nobody not even Parliament has the right to demand that such declarations are filed before the Table of the House every year for the public scrutiny.

Regulation 45 prohibits the Ministers from carrying on in the exercise of their profession or business. A minister is not bound to dispose of his interest or shares in the partnership or business, but must make the necessary arrangements to ensure that:
He dissociates himself from the direction or management of the office, trade or business;
He makes arrangements so that he can get paid for any work previously done or the profits due to him;
He does not continue to participate in the payments or profits due for work done after his appointment as Minister, except for a fixed sum each year considered as due in return for his previous investment.
Now, which Ministers own what in businesses or partnerships we do not know, because the government does not deem this to be in the public interest.

Regulation 58, which prohibits any minister from accepting gifts or services such as might be deemed to create an obligation, real or imaginary, is clear and even the blessings of the Prime Minister cannot go against these regulation. So much so that regulation 59 makes it mandatory for any minister to totally and immediately reject any attempt from persons who would like the Minister to use his position to gain some undue advantage for themselves.

So to recap: ministers and parliamentary secretaries are bound by a code of ethics; they have to send a letter to the Prime Minister requesting permission to go abroad on a private visit; they have to request in writing the permission of the Prime Minister to accept even a free gift such as a free ride; they have to declare their assets and liabilities every year to the secretary to the cabinet and this is for their eyes only; they cannot accept gifts or services, even for free; they have to dissociate themselves from the direction or management of the office, trade or business.

I do not know if the Prime Minister is bound by this code but being a member of the Cabinet he should be. What I am sure is that there is nobody above the code, as Parliament does not make sure that the government is abiding by these regulations to the letter.
The government modeled its Code of Ethics for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries on the British Minister Code picking and choosing what is best for his cabinet than what is best for the public.
It omitted many other obligations that the British cabinet has towards the British public, mainly: the annual publication by each Minister of the list of all overseas visits made by all ministers costing in excess of £500; a list of gifts worth more than £140 received by all ministers; the obligation of any minister who wishes to retain a gift to pay tax on that gift; the obligation of the Minister who accepts hospitality to notify his Permanent Secretary who is bound to declare it in the Register of Members’ or Peers’ Interests.

The British Code also provides for the free miles earned by Ministers in their official travel abroad. It makes it mandatory for these free miles to be used only for official purposes, or else forgone. Regulation 10.16 of the Code specifically states that if it is impracticable to use the benefits for Government travel, there is no objection to Ministers donating them to charity if this is permissible under the terms of the airline’s scheme and the charity is one chosen by the airline.

I cannot understand the Prime Minister’s strategy in putting the interests of the Cabinet before that of the public; nor can I either understand the silence by our Parliament in ensuring that the Code of Ethics is taken seriously and strictly observed. If Parliament wants to be taken seriously, it must either delete the code of ethics for ministers and parliamentary secretaries from its official website or else, make pressure so that the all documents which the ministers must submit according to the code, are put on the table of the House.

At the same time, the code must be redrafted so that they the people paid from the taxpayers’ money are held accountable.

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.

All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.

The law of perceptions

Saviour Balzan
Exorcise yourself, Tonio

Anna Mallia
There is a Code of Ethics for Ministers, too