Former prime minister Joseph Muscat did not breach ethics when he travelled to Italy with his family on a trip funded by a third party in August 2020. 

Although he had stepped down as prime minister eight months before, he was still serving as MP at the time. 

In a statement on Tuesday, the Office of Standards Commissioner George Hyzler said it found the holiday had taken place on invitation from Diane Izzo, a Muscat family friend, who organised a party at the venue for her relatives and close friends, including the former prime minister and his family.

General election candidate and former AD leader Arnold Cassola had alleged in a complaint that the holiday had been funded by Pietro Catalfamo, the owner of a company on Malta’s Stock Exchange. Catalfamo was also the owner of the Castello di Collalto Sabino, where Muscat and his family spent their holiday.

While investigating the claim, Hyzler found that Izzo had negotiated an arrangement with Catalfamo in which she paid for the catering and was given free accommodation at the castle for her guests.

"The code of ethics for members of parliament does not permit MPs to accept gifts from persons or entities with an interest in legislation before parliament. MPs who travel abroad must declare the trip if it is paid for by persons or entities with such an interest.

However, the commissioner found that no law then under consideration in parliament affected Izzo’s personal or commercial interests, the statement said.

The commissioner, therefore, concluded that Muscat was not obliged to either refuse the holiday or to declare it, so he did not uphold the complaint.

Izzo, an entrepreneur, and her husband Karl, are personal friends of Muscat and his wife Michelle. The pair had made headlines in the past over their ties to the Muscat family, especially after [Karl] Izzo was appointed Malta's ambassador to Montenegro.

Nonetheless, Hyzler said also said the code of ethics for MPs regulated gifts and other benefits "in too limited a manner".

"The relevant provisions of the code applied only if MPs were given benefits by persons or entities with an interest in legislation then before parliament. The provisions did not apply if MPs were given benefits in connection with their role in the enactment of past legislation, or to pave the way for legislation still to be presented in Parliament.

"Nor did the provisions apply if MPs were given benefits in connection with other parliamentary activities, such as a resolution to transfer public land to the private sector."

In the report, Hyzler again calls for the code of ethics to be updated to ensure better transparency. 

The full report can be read here.