Discrimination against MPs

Should parliamentarians employed in the civil service be forced to give up their regular job once they are returned to parliament?

I was amazed to learn recently that parliamentary colleague Joe Abela felt constrained to refer the matter to the Ombudsman. I find this strange as the Ombudsman himself is an official of the House of Representatives and reports directly to parliament.

In this case, the Ombudsman's role will be somewhat reversed, though I do not blame my colleague in the least for having had to resort to this extreme line of action.

Rightly or wrongly, parliamentary work has traditionally been regarded as part-time work. To emphasise this point, in fact, parliamentarians are not given a salary but an honorarium. For decades this amounted to a pittance but over time it has been raised considerably. Notwithstanding this, however, it is still rather low when considering the ancillary expenses MPs incur regularly. Parliamentarians are inundated with invitations from their constituents and feel obliged to attend social events such as weddings, Holy Communions and baptisms. Such occasions cost money.

Apart from this, they are also constantly asked for sponsorships by sports, social and political clubs of the district and at times they feel obliged to contribute. This has made it more difficult for politicians who depend solely on their parliamentary income for their livelihood to make a decent living, which is not only unjust but also dangerous.

Parliamentarians forced to relinquish their jobs once they find themselves in the House justifiably feel discriminated against. As the situation stands now they are forced to bear a financial hardship.

It all boils down to our inflexible estacode. The Labour government of 1996-98 had experienced, first-hand, how inflexible the estacode really is and how it does not allow any space for ministers to manoeuvre. Contrary to what some senior ultra-conservative civil servants think, the estacode, a collection of rules governing the civil service, is not the supreme law of the land and can very well be amended.

It is high time that these outdated regulations are revised. The same situation used to apply to politicians who were employed at the banks. In this case the anomaly has been removed and today bankers can keep their posts when they are elected to the House.

Of course, one may well understand that the matter is not all that easy to tackle in the civil service. The civil service is regarded as the lunga manus of the government of the day and is duty bound to implement the policies of the executive. Certain postings within the civil service are highly sensitive and can create a conflict of interest and of loyalty for parliamentarians.

Still, this does not mean that such problems cannot be overcome. They can by, for instance, transferring a parliamentarian to a more adequate post - adequate, that is, in the circumstances of the new situation the elected person finds himself in.

Furthermore, I feel that the principles emanating from the regulations are stretched to the limit. People like Mr Abela, a physiotherapist, and Mario Galea, a nurse, or Marie Louise Coleiro, an executive with a government department, definitely do not hold the sensitive positions referred to above. Similarly, other parliamentarians who occupy teaching positions within state schools should be offered the opportunity of pursuing their career since their line of work in no way contrasts negatively with their parliamentary work.

However, I do not think it should be the Ombudsman who should take up the issue. This could appear demeaning to parliament itself. Parliament would in effect be seeking the help of its own employees to overcome a problematic issue over which it has overwhelming power. In the circumstances, I feel the Committee of Parliamentary Privileges should intervene and stick up for those MPs who are clearly being discriminated against.

Happily, however, it seems that the matter is being seen to in informal discussions. It is true that parliamentarians are in politics through their own choice but their work in parliament is a service to the country and they should not be expected to do it to the detriment of their own livelihood. After all, they too have families to support.

Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament