Plans to sign Council of Europe corruption convention

The government would be signing a Council of Europe convention the aim of which was to step up the fight against corruption, Justice Minister Austin Gatt said yesterday.

Winding up the debate in second reading on the Bill amending the Civil Code, Dr Gatt said it was strange that the opposition should first declare it agreed with the Bill and then take something like six sittings to debate it.

Opposition speakers mentioned cases that were not only unconnected to the bill itself but also demonstrated that speakers did not understand what the proposed law was about.

Many of the speakers did not distinguish between corruption, an injustice, an administrative mistake and political discrimination.

It was wrong to depart from a point whereby a minister was considered to be corrupt or to be seeking personal benefits.

Likewise, it was wrong to speak about cases of corruption that had been investigated by the late Edgar Mizzi under Prime Minister Alfred Sant. Dr Mizzi had concluded the alleged corruption had not resulted and yet the same cases were now mentioned in the House as if they had been proven cases of corruption.

Corruption was defined as giving money or some other advantage in return for another advantage.

Referring to comments about transparency and the talks on the privatisation of Malta International Airport, Dr Gatt wondered how could one expect the government to brief the House all along about what was being negotiated. Evidently, one was only after scoring political points.

The minister said the bill before the House empowered the private citizen to proceed independently of any government. It was the private citizen who applied the provisions of the proposed law.

Dr Gatt said the other side of the House had a lot of experience insofar as corruption was involved between the years 1971-87. No wonder about 25 members from the other side should stand up and give details.

It was this government that had set up the Permanent Commission Against Corruption and the Ombudsman which both could investigate the government as indeed could the Auditor General who was now independent of the government.

This government had also changed tendering procedures in order to introduce the right to appeal. It changed the Criminal Code to make corruption a crime in both in the public and private sectors. This government had also decided to submit itself to be scrutinised by the Council of Europe and now proposed a Bill giving powers to private citizens to sue if they felt they were victims of corruption.

Once this bill was enacted, Malta would sign the relative convention to put itself more at the disposal of the Council of Europe for scrutiny.

Dr Gatt said that philosophically it was difficult to fault the Opposition leader`s speech about corruption. However, how could Dr Sant make an allegation, admit that facts could not be proven but insist that the matter was as he had presented it because he was morally convinced about it?

Every country suffered from the disease of corruption and Malta was no exception. This government had departed from a situation prevailing under Labour whereby the state retained control on every mechanism and on everything to the extent that it could not be investigated. In sharp contrast, this government was open to any investigation.

There had been occasions where the opposition would not submit itself to an entity probing corruption allegations or would refuse to make any statements about such allegations. That was unacceptable. One should either fight corruption all the way or else desist.

Few in the House were satisfied with the manner in which the PA operated but was it serious for Labour MP Louis Buhagiar to say that although he did not have evidence he was convinced there was corruption within the PA?

Things could not proceed in such a way. This was a small Mediterranean society where Omerta` - the code of silence - was still strong.

The more control the government exercised the more the possibility of areas of administrative corruption. Although politicians at times did fall victims of temptation it was far more realistic that an official in the lower echelons would benefit.

How could one speak in favour of removing prescription in the case of corruption? Prescription was there to regularise evidence because after some time evidence would dissipate as the mind would not be so clear after 10 years. Dr Sant had raised this point and, yet, had insisted on the removal of prescription.

It was only when the offence was known and when a suspect was indicated that prescription started running. In the case of the disappearance of Lino Cauchi, prescription was not running because no suspect had been indicated, Dr Gatt said.

He said the bill was another step ahead in this government`s ongoing fight against corruption.

Nothing was absolute in the fight against corruption. Today the problem was a trans-national one as was the fight.

How could one change a culture in a small society? It was not the mechanism in place that changed a culture but the people themselves. Dr Gatt said that personally he felt that if a magistrate were to be assigned special investigative duties the matter would end up in a witch-hunt and no more.

Corruption was present in every democracy and was even worse in a system where a government exercised excessive controls. Ultimately only a social solution could address the situation. The more the decentralisation of power the better the chances of reducing corruption. That was what this government had done. It had also implemented a number of measures aimed in that direction, Dr Gatt said.

The bill was then given a second reading.