In a videoconference with rapporteurs of the Venice Commission, which published its opinion on the government’s rule-of-law reform proposals last Friday, the minister for justice said the current package of reforms were to form part of a wider reform process.
Yet, the Venice Commission felt the need to reiterate another aspect that the government has so far failed to utter anything about.
This is the reform designed to turn parliament into a more dynamic institution that acts as a check on the government, a reform that, the Commission wrote, “remains valid”.
At issue are the “incompatibilities” between the supposed function of parliamentarians in a democratic country – to scrutinise the government or the executive – and the anomaly that exists in Malta: having most MPs engaged in positions across government.
Virtually all, if not all, Labour MPs are in this situation. Aside from ministers or parliamentary secretaries, most if not all Labour backbenchers hold remunerated positions in public bodies.
They have been appointed to such positions by the executive, and that means that breaking ranks with the executive in parliament, or somehow rocking the boat, could be an act against their personal financial interests.
The Venice Commission has pointed out that this situation is exacerbated by the fact that representatives are part-time MPs whose salaries are too low for a living. The salaries that many earn from officially appointed bodies are substantially higher than what they earn from parliament.
This gives them a financial incentive to seek posts in the administration they are supposed to control, compromising their independence as legislators.
It is not just the Venice Commission that has drawn attention to this fundamental flaw in the separation of powers. The Council of Europe’s GRECO made important points about standards of integrity in its report on Malta last year, with a bearing on the situation in parliament. On a local level, the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, George Hyzler, issued a strongly worded report a year ago saying that “democratic principles require that parliament should be capable of holding the government to account, but parliament cannot fulfil this role effectively if backbench MPs are financially dependent on the government”.
Yet, the government countered Hyzler’s report by arguing, in a narrowly legalistic line of defence, that the practice was within the parameters of the law. This betrayed its lack of interest in rectifying the anomaly in parliament.
Perhaps that is why the Venice Commission reiterated its recommendations to make MPs full-time as well as “strengthening the rules on incompatibilities and tightening the rules as regards appointments of MPs to public bodies”.
It added that “MPs should benefit from non-partisan research capacity and/or benefit from a senior consultative body. Finally, extensive use of delegated legislation should be avoided”.
The PN signalled broad agreement with these principles in a position paper on rule-of-law reforms issued last month. It called for a ban on backbench engagements with public bodies, while saying that MPs should be given the choice on being full-time or part-time, and raising the pay for full-timers.
The Venice Commission recommendations were devised holistically. In this sense it is amiss to ignore or delay reform of parliament to make it more able to fulfil its democratic function.
Besides, other institutions look upon the highest institution for guidance, and this requires parliament to set an example as the reform gets underway.
With the opposition in agreement, now is the time for the government to roll out a reform of parliament modelled on the spirit of recommendations by the Venice Commission.