The appointment of the new standards commissioner reached a new impasse over the past weeks, with a new bill allowing the government to appoint a commissioner with a simple majority vote being described by critics as undemocratic and reducing “public trust within this office”.

The government, on its part, has claimed that this same anti-deadlock mechanism was proposed both by the Venice Commission as well as by the PN in its 2017 manifesto - something the party denies.

The anti-deadlock proposal came about after the government and opposition failed to agree on a nominee for the post. The government’s preferred commissioner, former chief justice Joseph Azzopardi, has not been backed by the PN and the PN’s own names have been rejected by the government. 

The proposed mechanism stipulates that if two initial votes fail to garner a two-thirds majority, a third vote can be held a week later in which the standards commissioner can be appointed with a simple majority.

Whilst the discussion in Malta rumbles on, we take a look at how some countries around the world appoint their own standards watchdogs.

UK

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is responsible for investigating breaches of MPs’ Rules of Conduct as well as complaints into their behaviour, including bullying and harassment. The Commissioner’s role also involves maintaining the Register of Members' Financial Interests and ensuring that MPs’ financial interests do not influence their actions or words.

The Commissioner’s work, in turn, is overseen by the Committee on Standards, a Parliamentary Committee composed of several MPs from all sides of the House, together with a number of lay members. 

Complaints and investigations into MPs are received by the Commissioner, who then reports to the Committee on Standards once an investigation is concluded. The Committee then decides on whether a breach has taken place and may impose a sanction on the MP in question.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is selected through an open call which is advertised nationally.

Applicants go through a two-tiered interview process. The initial interview is carried out by a panel consisting of a chair who is a member of the Independent Expert Panel, an external member who sits on the Committee on Standards in Public Life, two senior Members of Parliament and a senior member of the House of Commons service.

This panel then recommends a shortlist of candidates to the House of Commons Commission, the body responsible for the administration and services of the House of Commons, which conducts the second round of interviews.

The final candidate is then nominated for approval by the House of Commons through a simple majority vote or even without a division, in cases where there is no opposition to the nomination.

USA

The behaviour of members of the House of Congress is overseen by the Ethics Committee, the only bipartisan committee within the House. The Committee’s primary function is to investigate potential violations of the House rules and regulations, as well as to review financial disclosure forms and flag potential irregularities.

The Committee is composed of 10 members, five from each side of the House, and is chaired by a member from whichever side has a majority within the House of Congress. The individual members of the Committee are nominated through respective parties.

Likewise, the Select Committee on Ethics carries out similar functions in terms of reviewing allegations of misconduct by Members of the Senate. The Committee is also bipartisan, with a total of six members, three from each of the two parties within the Senate. 

Canada

Canada’s system calls for the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to investigate breaches to the House of Commons’ Conflict of Interest Code, as well as to investigate and sanction members of the House in cases of alleged unethical or improper behaviour.

The Commissioner is appointed for a renewable seven-year tenure by the Governor in Council, the Governor General acting on behalf of Cabinet, after consultation with the leader of each party sitting in the House of Commons. Following consultation, the selected candidate is submitted to the House of Commons for formal approval through a parliamentary vote.

France 

The High Authority for Transparency in Public Life, established in 2014, is an independent authority tasked with ensuring transparency amongst public officials. The Authority receives and reviews declarations of assets, issues opinions on potential conflicts of interest and responds to requests on possible breaches of ethics by France’s public officials. 

In order to be eligible for the vote, an individual must have served as a judge of a superior court, been a member of a board or commission working directly within the field of ethics, conflict of interest and professional regulation, or worked directly as an ethics officer or commissioner within another organisation.

The Authority’s president is appointed by presidential decree, whilst other members are selected through the Conseil d’Etat (the State Council), the Supreme Court and the Court of Auditors, together with other members appointed by the President of the National Assembly and the President of the Senate. Each member of the Authority is appointed for a non-renewable six year term.

Iceland

Parliamentary standards are upheld directly by the Speakers’ Committee, a body composed of the Speaker of the House and six Deputy Speakers, all of whom are elected through the Althingi (Icelandic Parliament) through a proportional vote. 

The Speakers’ Committee, in turn, establishes a dedicated three-member Advisory Committee, to provide an opinion on alleged breaches of the code of conduct.

The chair of the advisory committee is nominated directly by the Speaker of the House, with the other two members nominated by the Joint Committee of the Icelandic Universities, with one being professionally qualified in the field of law and the other in philosophy or ethics. The advisory committee is appointed for a period of five years.