Standards Commissioner George Hyzler on Thursday again hit back at Glenn Bedingfield's attacks, saying the fact the Labour MP had not produced evidence to back up his claims led to suspicions he was trying to undermine the office.

Bedingfield hit out at Hyzler for the second time in as many weeks on Monday, saying in parliament that his criticism was at the way the commissioner was running his office, and not the office itself.

In his reaction, through a letter to Speaker Anġlu Farrugia and published by his office, Hyzler enclosed the contracts of work of employees at his office, as requested by Bedingfield in a parliamentary question, leaving it up to the Speaker to decide whether to publish them. He was doing so, he said, in agreement with the employees concerned.

Hyzler argued, however, that this was not the way to discuss his office. The law about the Standards Commissioner laid down the proper procedure, including the requirement of an annual report, he said.

He also pointed out that despite the general impression, he was not an officer of parliament. The law that regulated his office said nothing to this effect, in contrast to the laws regulating the Ombudsman and the Auditor General.

Going into Bedingfield's claims, Hyzler said his driver was actually paid less than ministerial drivers and yet he was required to work daily as well as do some work in the office. In contrast, ministerial drivers worked on alternate days.

No professional negligence by financial consultant

It was also false, Hyzler said, that his financial consultant had been found guilty of professional negligence. No criminal or professional action was ever taken against him. He was involved in the civil case over the Price Club supermarket collapse only because he was one of the partners of Deloitte and not because he was personally involved.

Furthermore, Hyzler said, none of the children of his legal consultant was a member of NGO Repubblika. Even if that was the case, it would not have created a conflict of interest as the legal consultant did not decide cases.

“By the same yardstick, the fact the son of your legal consultant is a general election candidate does not put your legal consultant in a conflict of interest,” Hyzler told the Speaker.

And, in the discussion on conflict of interest, it was worth considering whether the ‘violent attack’ being consistently made against him in parliament was consistent with Bedingfield’s role as a member of the Parliamentary Standards Committee.

No evidence staff member was 'under shadow of corruption'

Hyzler observed that Bedingfield had repeated his claim that a member of staff at his office was under the shadow of corruption.

He recalled that he had investigated the claim when it was first made, and when nothing resulted he had asked Bedingfield to hand him any evidence. Instead, Bedingfield made further claims, saying that a member of the staff of the Standards Office had previously been removed from an important post because of serious allegations. He had also claimed that a member of the staff had run up a €3,000 phone bill paid from public funds.

Hyzler said he had again carried out his investigations and nothing had resulted. He was again asking Bedingfield to hand him details if he really wanted to see the claims investigated.

“Should he fail to do so, the only conclusion one can reach is that the honourable MP is consistently trying to undermine my office through insinuation and unfounded claims against me and the staff, who are being victimised for doing their duty like other employees of the public sector,” Hyzler said.