A bill to regulate the appointment of persons of trust was drafted in bad faith, to the extent that such persons would not be considered as public officials, the opposition protested on Tuesday.
The bill was moved by Justice Minister Edward Zammit Lewis.
It defines persons of trust as being any employee or person engaged directly from outside the public service and the public sector to act as consultants and staff in the private secretariat of a minister or parliamentary secretary. The number of persons that may be engaged and the conditions of employment of persons of trust shall be established in the manual published by cabinet office.
The shadow minister on the public service, Karol Aquilina, said no one disputed the need for the appointment of persons of trust. The issue was about abuse of the system in their recruitment and the monitoring of their activities.
In terms of the new definition of persons of trust, it would appear that members of the public service or the civil service who became persons of trust would no longer fall under the ambit of the Standards Commissioner. He hoped this would not be the case.
The bill also provided that when no one replied to a public call for applications, a minister could directly engage persons on a position of trust basis. Why was this? Why should it be the minister to decide who should be employed?
The most worrying aspect of the law was a clause which said that "persons of trust shall not be deemed to be public officers or public employees."
While it was obvious they persons of trust were not part of the civil service, once they were paid by the state, they should have the same obligations as public officials and be subject to the same penalties if they committed wrongdoing. Indeed, under some laws, public officers convicted of wrongdoing were liable to harsher penalties than people who were not.
Concluding, the shadow minister said the engagement of persons of trust should be an exception, not the rule. The Opposition was prepared to cooperate with the government on the wording of this bill, but it feared that the law, as drafted, was not in good faith.
MPs can still be employed directly by ministers
Independent MP Godfrey Farrugia said the law would still make it possible for MPs to be engaged directly by ministers. This undermined the definition of separation of powers and the checks and balances which MPs should exercise.
Edward Zammit Lewis.In his introduction of the debate, Zammit Lewis said persons of trust were appointed by every administration worldwide and had been for decades. While it was important that the civil service was neutral and ensured there was continuity between administrations, persons of trust were needed to implement government policies they truly believed in.
The Venice Commission and Greco (the Council of Europe anti-corruption body) had told the Maltese government that appointments needed to be better regulated both in their number and in the nature of such appointments.
The Venice Commission argued that a constitutional amendment was needed, something with which the government did not agree.
The government felt that the sector could be better regulated under the Public Administration Act, the Standards in Public Life Act and the Manual issued by the Principal Permanent Secretary (PPS), including the Regulations on the engagement of persons on a trust basis, the Engagement of policy consultants and the Engagement of secretarial staff.
He denied that the current government had an excessive number of persons of trust. The number of ministries had increased and responsibilities had become more complex, he said. Still, under the PN in 2012 had some 600 persons of trust even when there were fewer ministries. Under the PN, persons of trust had even been appointed beyond the secretariats of ministries, such as at the EU coordination unit.
Zammit Lewis welcomed observations on this bill made by the Commissioner for Standards on Public Life, notably on the definition of persons of trust. The definition was, rightly, not based on functions, but the engagement. This made a distinction between persons of trust and positions of trust. The latter involved people already in the civil service, but working for particular ministers. These people were already regulated by the Public Service Commission and their position would not change.
As to the method of recruitment, the standards commissioner had expressed concerns about abuse. The merit principle applied in public appointment, as already laid down in public service regulations, Zammit Lewis said.
While the government felt no need to amend the constitution, he was confident that the government had otherwise achieved the wishes expressed by the Venice Commission on the appointment of such persons.
The new method would ensure there was greater transparency and he hoped both sides in parliament could work together and achieve consensus on this law.
Other speakers included Labour MP Glen Bedingfield who argued that persons of trust were not being considered as public officials because their engagement did not fall under the Public Service Commission. He proposed that the government should allow persons of trust to take part in public political discussion. Their role, after all, was largely political, he said.
In winding up the debate, Zammit Lewis said the law limited ministerial discretion on direct employment.
He pointed out that this law also extended the powers of the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life to investigate both criminal activities as well as corrupt practices which might not, in themselves be crimes.
He said a person who still worked in the civil service but was asked to serve in a ministerial secretariat would not be considered as a person of trust, but as one holding a position of trust. Such persons were already regulated.
The aim of the bill was to ensure that roles which did not need to be filled by persons of trust would not be filled in this way, and numbers would be limited. Indeed all this was already found in the Manual and other documents issued by the Principal Permanent Secretary.