Editorial: Truth should never be à la carte

The headline news from a recent decision by the commissioner of standards in public life was that, unlike government ministers, MPs are not bound by their code of ethics to tell the truth. The commissioner had already raised the point before.

Standards Commissioner Joseph Azzopardi, a former chief justice, concluded that Nationalist MP Claudette Buttigieg had, “intentionally or otherwise, presented a false picture” of the conclusions of a study about the fallout of a proposed incinerator in Magħtab.

Later, in his ‘final considerations’, the standards commissioner was more specific as to whether her comments were intentional or not. He observed there are legitimate questions one could make as to the study conducted. “However,” he then remarked, “it is one thing raising such questions on the study and another projecting a false picture of its contents.”

To the ordinary reader, at least, the implication is clear: Buttigieg deliberately, for her own ends, misquoted the findings.

Yet, the standards commissioner concluded that the wording of the code of ethics for MPs stopped him from going further. He was not in a position to introduce the duty of honesty for MPs.

“The undersigned is bound to abide by the law. Therefore, he feels there should be particular reasons in which an untruthful declaration by a deputy be considered as breaching article 1 [of the code of ethics],” the commissioner said.

So, it seems that, after all, his office can act when faced with untruthful statements, even by an MP. In fact, he had done so in a previous case when, Alex Borg, now opposition leader, was found to have breached ethics by making misleading comments about the restoration of Fort Chambray.

Azzopardi had then argued that an MP who makes an untruthful statement can be found guilty of breaching the code of ethics only if such action is considered not to reflect the status and dignity of the House of Representatives.

Surely, a matter that could impinge on public safety, as in the case of incinerator pollution, would, at the least, carry as much weight as concerns about a restoration project, even if it involved a historic structure.

Still, the standards commissioner did not feel Buttigieg deserved a dressing down or that he should strongly ‘recommend’ action by those in a position to do so, such as the parliamentary speaker.

As its very title suggests, a main aim of the commissioner’s office is to enforce integrity standards – especially, honesty, probity and rectitude – among MPs, ministers, parliamentary secretaries, parliamentary assistants and persons of trust.

Sticking by the word of the law is one thing, raising the bar of standards in public life is another, a duty that falls squarely on the commissioner’s shoulders.

It is his responsibility to find ways and means to do that.

Action should also have been taken immediately by the Nationalist Party but it remained silent. Indeed, both parties should move to plug this loophole, if a lacuna there is.

When trust, respect and confidence in elected representatives is damaged, the UK’s House of Commons’ committee on standards had advised it would be incumbent on the democratic legislature “to steel its nerve and provide leadership around standards of conduct which the public expect”.

Given their visibility and influence, public figures are expected to always maintain high standards of honesty.

Deliberate misrepresentation of facts or official reports is deplorable also because it dilutes the quality of public discourse and weakens democratic accountability.

White lies and political dishonesty are not the same.commissioner