Without transparency, accountability is hampered

Earlier this week I was called by the Auditor General to his office in order to discuss the request for an investigation which I had submitted to his office some 15 days ago on behalf of ADPD. My request for an investigation was relative to the contract of service entered into between the Institute for Tourism Studies (ITS) and the Honourable Rosianne Cutajar, then a Labour member of parliament, now turned independent after being squeezed out of Labour.

As pointed out earlier in this column (The role of members of Parliament: TMIS 2 April), the issue is not an investigation of Rosianne Cutajar. It is rather an investigation into the operation of the Institute for Tourism Studies (ITS): whether it has engaged a consultant to its CEO to carry out responsibilities in respect of which the said consultant had no knowledge or competence, as is public knowledge.

An examination of the contract entered into between the Honourable Cutajar and ITS lists the areas of responsibilities which she was expected to shoulder: primarily issues of financial management. These responsibilities fall substantially outside the competences of a qualified Italian secondary school teacher. The contract in question is one which was hidden from public view until it was released by Shift News on the 23 March after it had obtained a copy as a result of a Freedom of Information request.

The inquisitive and investigative free press is shining a light on secretive acts carried out by the public sector: this is what transparency is about. Without transparency there is no way that we can ensure a shred of accountability.

The Auditor General informed me that he had called this meeting to hear my views, prior to his taking a decision on whether to proceed with the investigation and subsequently inform the Speaker of the House of Representatives of his findings.

Good governance does not stand a chance of ever taking root if this is how decisions are taken in the wider public sector. It is about time that all decision-takers start shouldering responsibility for the decisions they take. This ITS contract is one small example of abusive behaviour which needs acting upon immediately. It is not only politicians who must be accountable.

The management of public funds is tied with a duty to act in a responsible manner. All those who manage public funds must be in a position to account minutely for their actions. At the end of the day, it is the Auditor General who is entrusted by Parliament to monitor and report on the matter. Hopefully in the not-too-distant future we will be informed exactly what happened and who is actually responsible.

Transparency and accountability work in tandem. A lack of transparency is normally the first step to try and ensure that accountability is avoided.

Transparency is the indispensable foundation of good governance. In contrast, bad governance is generally wrapped in secrecy through the withholding of information which should be in the public domain. Without transparency, accountability is a dead letter; devoid of any meaning. A lack of transparency transforms our democracy into a defective process, as basic and essential information required to form an opinion on what’s going on is missing. After all, accountability is about responsibility: it signifies the acknowledgement and assumption of responsibility for our actions. This cannot be achieved unless and until transparency reigns supreme.

Whenever government, or public bodies, are secretive about information which they hold, and refuse or oppose without valid reason requests to release information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act they give ample proof of their governance credentials.

Transparency is a journey, not a destination. We have to work hard at ensuring transparency continuously. It is a long journey, one which never ends.

Rules and laws will not bring about transparency. It will only result whenever each one of us opts to do what is right and not what is expedient. Our actions speak much louder than words.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 16 April 2023

Ir-rwol tal-Membri tal-Parlament

Iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa, tlabt lill- Awditur Ġenerali biex jinvestiga l-ingaġġ tal-Onorevoli Rosianne Cutajar bħala konsulent taċ-Chief Executive Officer tal-Istitut għall-Istudji Turistiċi (ITS).

Meta wieħed jaqra l-kuntratt tax-xogħol ta’ Cutajar mal-ITS, li kien ippubblikat minn Shift News bħala riżultat tal-applikazzjoni tal-liġi għal jedd għall-aċċess għall-informazzjoni, wieħed jista’ malajr jikkonkludi li r-responsabbiltà tal-konsulenza ta’ Cutajar kien fil-qasam tal-amministrazzjoni finanzjarja tal-ITS.

Cutajar kienet mistennija li taħdem mill-viċin mas-CEO u mad-Diretturi tal-Istitut għall-Istudji Turistiċi fit-tħejjija tal-budget annwali, tas-sorveljanza u kontroll tal-kwalità, biex ikunu stabiliti miri, biex tassisti fit-teħid tad-deċiżjonijiet meħtieġa fit-tmexxija ta’ kuljum, fl-analiżi ta’ rapporti kemm dawk ta’ natura finanzjarja kif ukoll ta’ dawk li mhux, kif ukoll li tidentifika soluzzjonijiet u titjib fl-operat kif meħtieġ.

Meta hu fatt magħruf li Cutajar hi mħarrġa bħala għalliema tal-lingwa Taljana fil-livell sekondarju, hu raġjonevoli li tassumi li dan hu kuntratt biex inħoloq impieg fantażma, imħallas minn fondi pubbliċi.

Fid-dawl ta’ dan jiena tlabt lill-Awditur Ġenerali biex jinvestiga lill-ITS u lit-tmexxija tiegħu għax fl-aħħar mill-aħħar ir-responsabbiltà għal dan kollu hu tas-CEO tal-ITS. Huwa jrid jispjega dak li għamel lit-tim investigattiv tal-awditur ġenerali biex ikun stabilit eżattament x’ġara.

Il-ħolqien ta’ impiegi fantażma fis-settur pubbliku jsir biex jibbenefika lill-bażużli u jħallashom ta’ ħidmiethom f’oqsma oħra. L-impieg fantażma ta’ Rosianne Cutajar’s mhux l-unika wieħed li nafu bih. Tiftakru lil Melvin Theuma, dak li għamilha ta’ sensar biex tinqatel Daphne Caruana Galiza? Anke lilu kienu taw impieg fantażma fis-settur pubbliku, ringrazzjament għal dak li kien qiegħed iwettaq!  Wieħed jistaqsi il-għala, Rosianne Cutajar, li jiena u qed nikteb għadha Membru Parlamentari, għaliex mhiex iffukata fuq xogħolha bħala membru tal-parlament? Jidher li għandha ħafna ħin li ma tafx x’ser tagħmel bih biex tista’ tiddedika ta’ l-inqas 24 siegħa kull ġimgħa għal xogħol ta’ konsulenza lill-ITS, b’żied mal-ħin meħtieġ “għar-responsabbiltajiet Parlamentari” tagħha, u ta’ hekk titħallas €27,000 fis-sena.

Il-problema hi ferm ikbar minn hekk għax hu mistenni li bħala parti mir-responsabbiltajiet  tagħha ta’ membru parlamentari tissorvelja l-istess ITS u tara li l-Ministru tat-Turiżmu jerfa’ ir-responsabbiltà politika għall-operat ta’ dan l-istitut. Imma kif tista’ tagħmel dan jekk għandha kuntratt ta’ konsulenza li bih hi involuta fit-tmexxija tal-istess istitut? Safejn naf jien, qatt ma irtirat minn dibattitu parlamentari dwar it-turiżmu minħabba xi konflitt ta’ interess!

Il-problema mhiex ristretta għall-konsulenza ta’ Cutajar. B’mod partikolari sa mill-2013, dan seħħ fil-grupp parlamentari Laburista in vista anke ta’ emendi għal diversi liġijiet li ippermettew li Membri Parlamentari jinħatru f’karigi diversi. Kellna, per eżempju, lil Deo Debattista u lil Manwel Mallia li kienu nħatru Chairperson tal-Awtorità għall-Ħarsien tas-Saħħa fuq il-Post tax-Xogħol, inkella lil Konrad Mizzi li hekk kif tkeċċa minn Ministru tat-Turiżmu kien inħatar konsulent tal-Awtorità tat-Turiżmu fuq struzzjonijiet speċifiċi tal-Prim Ministru Joseph Muscat. Dan kien ġie stabilit anke bħala riżultat ta’ investigazzjoni li kienet saret mill-Kummissarju għall-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika fuq talba tiegħi.

Kien hemm ukoll numru sostanzjali ta’ ħatriet ta’ Membri Parlamentari bħala konsulenti f’diversi rwoli. F’ħin minnhom, kif ġie emfasizzat mill-Kummissarju għall-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika f’rapport tal-2019, tnejn minn kull tlett backbencher Parlamentari kellu jew kellha xi ħatra jew kuntratt mas-settur pubbliku.

Mhiex funzjoni ta’ membru Parlamentari li jagħti l-pariri lid-Dipartimenti tal-Gvern jew lil xi awtorità pubblika, anke meta jkun (jew tkun) kkwalifikat biex jagħmel dan.  Il-Membru Parlamentari qiegħed hemm biex jilleġisla, biex iħares il-fondi pubbliċi kif ukoll biex jassigura li l-Gvern tal-ġurnata jagħti kont ta’ egħmilu kontinwament. Dan hu obbligu ta’ kull wieħed u waħda mill-Membri Parlamentari.

Tul is-snin il-parlament wera li kien inkapaċi li jagħmel dmiru u riżultat ta’ hekk, il-Kabinett, li qiegħed jikber kontinwament b’mod esaġerat,  ħassu liberu li jagħmel li jrid, għax jaf li effettivament ħadd ma kien qed jitolbu kont ta’ egħmilu.

Il-Membri Parlamentari tagħna huma part-timers. L-impieg ewlieni tagħhom jeħdilhom ħinhom u l-enerġija tagħhom. Riżultat ta’ hekk nistgħu ta’ kuljum naraw parlament ineffettiv b’membri parlamentari bħal Rosianne Cutajar ifittxu impiegi fantażma, u dan sakemm ma tkunx qed tagħmilha ta’ sensara tassisti fil-bejgħ tal-propjetà u ddaħħal xi kummissjoni!

Wasal iż-żmien li l-Membri Parlamentari jagħmlu xogħol tal-parlament biss u xejn iktar.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : 2 t’April 2023

The role of Members of Parliament

Earlier this week I requested the Auditor General to investigate the appointment of the Honourable Rosianne Cutajar as a consultant to the Chief Executive Office of the Institute for Tourism Studies (ITS).

Reading through Cutajar’s contract of employment with ITS, made public by Shift News as a result of a freedom of information application, one clearly concludes that the main areas of responsibility of consultant Cutajar were in the areas of the financial management of ITS.

She was expected to work closely with the CEO and the Institute Directors in order to prepare annual budgets, oversea quality control, establish goals, assist in day-to-day decisions, review financial and non-financial reports to devise solutions and improvements……………

Knowing that consultant Cutajar is a trained teacher of the Italian language at secondary school level it is very reasonable to assume that this contract created a phantom job, paid for from public monies.

In view of this logical conclusion I requested the Auditor General to investigate the  ITS and its management as at the end of the day it is the ITS CEO who is responsible for this state of affairs. He should answer for his actions and explain matters to the auditor general’s investigation team.

The creation of phantom jobs at the public sector is done to benefit blue-eyed boys and girls as payment for services rendered elsewhere. Rosianna Cutajar’s phantom job is not the only one we know of. Do you remember Melvin Theuma, the guy who brokered the murderof Daphne Caruana Galizia? He too was given a phantom job in the public sector, thanking him for services rendered.

Why isn’t Rosianne Cutajar (at the point of writing still a Member of Parliament) focused on her duties as a Member of Parliament? She seems to have so much time on her hands that, in addition to her “Parliamentary duties” she can dedicate a minimum of 24 hours every week to her ITS consultancy work, against payment of €27,000 per annum.

The problem is even bigger than that, as she is expected, as part of her parliamentary duties, to monitor the ITS and to hold the Hon Minister of Tourism accountable for their performance.  How can she do this when she is involved in all this as a result of her consultancy? I am not aware that she ever withdrew from a parliamentary debate on tourism on the grounds of conflict of interest!

This problem is not restricted to consultant Cutajar. It has in fact, particularly since 2013, been generally applicable to the Labour party parliamentary group in view of the amendments to various laws which permitted the appointment of sitting MPs to various posts. We have had Deo Debattista and Manwel Mallia who were appointed as Chairpersons of the Health and Safety Authority or Konrad Mizzi who on being fired as Minister for Tourism was appointed as consultant to the Tourism Authority on the express instructions of then Premier Joseph Muscat as attested to by the investigation concluded at my request by the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life.

In addition, there have been a substantial number of other appointments of MPs as advisors in various roles. At a point in time, as emphasised by the then Commissioner for Standards in Public Life in a 2019 report, two-thirds of all backbench MPs held appointments in or contracts with the public sector.

It is not the role or function of a sitting MP to advise a government department or a public authority, even if he or she is qualified to do so.  A Member of Parliament should sit in Parliament to legislate, to protect the public purse and to hold government to account continuously. This is the duty of each MP.

Over the years parliament has shown itself to be incapable of doing its duty and as a result has left the ever-growing Cabinet free to do what it likes, knowing that no one will effectively hold it to account.

Our Parliamentarians are part-timers. Their full-time employment takes up most of their time and energies. The result is what we can all see, day in day out: an ineffective parliament with Parliamentarians like Rosianne Cutajar seeking phantom jobs, when she is not brokering the sale of properties and pocketing the relative commissions!

Isn’t it about time that Members of Parliament are full-timers?

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 2 April 2023

Licensing the construction industry

Watching the collapse of the structure which killed Jean-Paul Sofia sends shock waves through every bit of my body each time I catch a split-second glimpse of the relative video.

The magisterial inquiry is under way but for some inexplicable reason there is a resistance to a much wider public inquiry. Faced with the resulting death and multiple injuries, the public inquiry is an essential tool which could make it possible to understand what actually happened, beyond the accident itself. The public inquiry could definitely unravel important information on a number of specifics which had a bearing on the accident even if at first glance these are possibly unconnected.

So far no one has been charged. It is not known whether anybody has been interrogated on the incident, except, probably, as part of the magisterial inquiry itself, which is unfortunately taking too long to conclude. It is possible that there are valid reasons for this delay, but we are not aware of these as the magistrate in charge of the inquiry does not normally go around explaining such matters. I believe that it is in the public interest for the Court Registrar to explain matters as we have a right to know, just as much as the Law Courts have a duty to explain.

It has been stated that the licensing of the construction industry will lead to its improvement. This, we are told, would ensure the development of an industry that respects rules and ensures their uniform enforcement, as a result being more protective of life and limb.

I do not think that anyone desires otherwise. However, the proposals in the draft licence regulations do not necessarily lead in that direction. They need much more than fine-tuning.

The proposed regulations list the qualifications and documentation which an applicant for one of the three types of construction licence (demolition, excavation/piling, construction) should comply with. One of these documents is the conduct certificate. The proposed regulations, however, do not clearly spell out whether, and the extent to which, the contents of such a conduct certificate should have a bearing on the adjudication process leading to a decision on the issuing or the withholding of a licence.

Specifically, being bankrupt is a licence disqualification which is clearly spelt out in the proposed regulations. Which conduct or behaviour will be considered as disqualifying an applicant for a licence or its renewal?  Zero tolerance of unacceptable behaviour should be clearly spelt out as grounds for disqualification. We do not need to wait for the ultimate consequences to disqualify an applicant or a licence holder. Acting in a timely manner, before it is too late, should be the objective of the licencing and regulatory process. This should be as clearly spelt out as bankruptcy in the proposed regulations! Being assumed, implied or discretionary is not sufficient.

How about those who have a history of enforcement issues with the Building Construction Authority (BCA)? Should such a history have a bearing on the issuing of a licence or its renewal?  Where do we draw the line? Considering the recorded behaviour of all applicants should definitely be the starting point of the licencing process. Applicants should not be considered as having a clean slate: all their existing baggage should have a direct bearing in the consideration of whether they should be licenced or not. Past behaviour is definitely a guarantee of future patterns of behaviour. If the past is ignored it is bound to be repeated. All this is unfortunately ignored by the draft regulations.

Specifically, the impacts of the whole process of construction on third parties needs to be given considerable importance even as a licencing requirement. Too many building contractors run roughshod over the concerns of neighbouring residents. This is not always satisfactorily addressed by the operators, at times leading to lengthy litigation. This is an area which, with proper enforcement, the licensing process should eventually improve substantially.

Case-law indicates that both the imposition of substantial administrative fines as well as the suspension or withdrawal of licences can be challenged on constitutional grounds. The long-drawn-out legal battles which will inevitably develop will render the regulatory process ineffective and as a result undermining the whole reform.

Likewise, there is serious potential for abuse. Administrative action may be used to intentionally eliminate the possibility for criminal action. The matter has already arisen in an environmental case where criminal action already initiated could not proceed due to the matter having been addressed through the payment of an administrative fine.

Furthermore, the Building and Construction Tribunal which would eventually consider appeals concerning licences, although described as independent and impartial, is nothing of the sort.  It is made up of part-timers who are in full-time private practice which includes advising operators in the building construction industry. This creates legal grounds for the contestation of all its decisions.

The effectiveness of the licencing process will, at the end of the day be dependent on the resources made available to the Building and Construction Authority in order that it can fulfil its regulatory responsibilities. The Authority must be proactive. It can only do this if its inspectors do not await the lodging of a report in order to take action.

Government’s declared willingness to act, regulate and enforce is positive. Only time will however show if this willingness is translated into concrete results. Signs so far are however not promising.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 19 March 2023

Il-President George Vella u l-ittra ta’ riżenja ta’ Joseph Muscat

The Shift News qed jirrappurtaw li talbu r-rilaxx tal-ittra ta’ riżenja li Joseph Muscat, dakinnhar Prim Ministru, għadda lill-President tar-Repubblika. It-talba saret taħt il-Freedom of Information Act.

Il-President tar-Repubblika ċaħad it-talba u spjega għaliex kien qed jagħmel hekk. It-tweġiba tiegħu hi inkwetanti iktar miċ-ċaħda innifisha.

The Shift News qed jgħidu li t-tweġiba li waslet għandhom mingħand il-President tar-Repubblika kienet tgħid li mhux ġustifikat il-pubblikazzjoni tal-ittra ta’ riżenja għax kieku dan kellu jsir il-ħsara li issir tiżboq bil-bosta il-benefiċċju tal-pubblikazzjoni tal-informazzjoni.

Issa jiena naħseb li ħadd, għajr min kitibha u min irċieviha, ma jaf x’fiha l-ittra. Imma t-tweġiba tal-President tar-Repubblika tagħti lil wieħed x’jifhem li l-ittra fiha spjegazzjoni dettaljata dwar x’wassal għar-riżenja li tmur lil hinn minn dak li nafu diġa.

Jiena għandi kull rispett lejn il-President tar-Repubblika imma naħseb li hu żbaljat. Hu fl-interess pubbliku li l-ittra tkun ippubblikata bla dewmien. Mhux kompitu tal-President tar-Repubblika li jiċċensura informazzjoni ta’ importanza politika.

Il-Lobbying u l-eżerċizzju tal-poter

Meta niddiskutu l-politika dwar ir-regolamentazzjoni tal-lobbying bosta drabi jqum l-argument dwar dawk il-politiċi li hekk kif jispiċċaw mill-politika attiva jingħataw responsabbiltajiet f’azjendi kbar. Din nirreferu għaliha bħala politika tar-“revolving door”, imsemmija għall-dawk il-bibien tal-lukandi li jduru u li hekk kif tidħol fiċ-ċirku tagħhom, malajr tispiċċa ġewwa.

L-eżempju klassiku li jissemma hu l-ingaġġ ta’ Josè Manuel Barroso li sa ħames snin ilu kien President tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea mill-bank multinazzjonali Goldman Sachs. Il-kumitat tal-etika tal-Unjoni Ewropea kien iddeskriva l-imġieba ta’ Barroso bħala waħda li kienet etikament ħażina avolja kien konkluż li ma kien hemm l-ebda ksur tal-Kodiċi tal-Etika.

Imġiba bħal din hi meqjusa bħala parti integrali mill-proċess tal-lobbying li jeħtieġ li jkun regolat b’mod adegwat.

F’Malta dawn l-affarijiet nagħmluhom “aħjar” minn hekk għax l-anqas regoli dwar imġieba ta’ din ix-xorta ma għandna! Fost oħrajn, dan huwa riżultat tal-fatt li ma kienx hemm qbil bejn Gvern u Opposizzjoni fil-Parlament dwar ir-regolamentazzjoni tal-lobbying meta kienet qed tkun diskussa il-liġi dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika. Allura ipposponew id-diskussjoni billi tefgħuha f’ħoġor il-Kummissarju dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika George Hyzler, bl-inkarigu li jkun hu li jabbozza r-regoli proposti dwar il-lobbying f’Malta.

F’Malta dan fil-fatt seħħ ukoll fil-passat riċenti mhux biss meta John Dalli kien ingaġġat mal-Grupp tal-Marsovin imma ukoll meta l-Grupp Corinthia, fi żminijiet differenti, ingaġġa kemm lis-Sur Dalli kif ukoll lill-Karmenu Vella, li għadu kif temm perjodu ta’ ħames snin bħala Kummissarju tal-Unjoni Ewropea. Ma nkisrux regoli minħabba li l-imġiba etika f’dan il-pajjiż hi ġeneralment injorata. Ir-reazzjoni lokali għal dan l-ingaġġ ta’ politiċi ġeneralment kienet: għala le?

Hu loġiku li nikkonkludu li jekk f’Malta niġu naqgħu u nqumu milli nirregolaw kif fid-dinja tan-negozju u l-industrija jingaġġaw malajr politiċi li jkunu għadhom kif spiċċaw mill-ħatra, aħseb u ara kemm ser nagħtu kaz meta nies tan-negozju jiġu ngaġġati huma stess f’posizzjonijiet viċin il-politiċi biex b’hekk jinfluwenzaw u jirregolaw l-aġenda pubblika.

Wara skiet twil, f’wieħed mill-messaġġ qosra, qishom it-talba ta’ filgħodu, li qed jippubblika fuq facebook, Varist Bartolo, qalilna kemm hu perikoluż li nies tan-negożju jkunu viċin iżżejjed tal-poter. Probabbilment li qed jitkellem mill-esperjenza, wara li hu u sħabu fil-Kabinett kienu qed jiffaċċjaw lill-Keith Schembri għal kważi seba’ snin sħaħ fl-Uffiċċju tal-Prim Ministru. U dan mhux l-uniku kaz.

Meta l-Kummissarju dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika ikollu l-ħin biex ifassal regoli dwar il-lobbying, dan kollu, bla dubju, jkun wieħed mill-punti fundamentali li jkunu meħtieġa illi jkunu indirizzati. In konformità ma dak li jiġri band’oħra, probabbilment li jikkonsidra regolament li ma jippermettix li l-qabża mis-settur politiku għal dak kummerċjali jseħħ immedjatament. Dan ikun ifisser li ħatriet ta’ din ix-xorta jkollhom jistennew bejn sena u nofs u sentejn minn meta tkun ġiet fi tmiemha l-ħidma fis-settur li fiha l-persuna tkun ħadmet l-aħħar. Dan isir bl-intenzjoni li jkun imnaqqas l-impatt negattiv tal-lobbying li inevitabilment jirriżulta u li jkun intrinsikament assoċjat ma dawn it-tip ta’ ħatriet.

Qegħdin tard ukoll biex ikun regolat il-lobbying b’mod ġenerali. Ir-rimedju bażiku kontra l-impatti negattivi tal-lobbying hi t-trasparenza.

Il-lobbying, kemm-il darba jsir sewwa u b’mod etiku m’għandux iwassal għal governanza ħażina. Għax huwa perfettament leġittimu li ċittadin, gruppi ta’ ċittadini, kumpaniji u anke għaqdiet mhux governattivi jfittxu li jinfluwenzaw it-teħid tad-deċiżjonijiet. Dan isir il-ħin kollu u jinvolvi l-komunikazzjoni ta’ informazzjoni u opinjonijiet jew veduti lill-leġislaturi u lil dawk li jamministraw minn kull min għandu kwalunkwè xorta ta’ interess.

Dan hu perfettament leġittimu għax iżomm lil min jieħu d-deċiżjonijiet infurmat bl-impatti ta’ dak li jkun qiegħed ikun ikkunsidrat. Imma huwa importanti li dan il-lobbying ma jkunx trasformat fi proċess li bħala riżultat tiegħu il-politiku jagħmel il-wisa’ u d-deċiżjonijiet fil-fatt jeħodhom ħaddieħor mid-dinja tal-business.

Il-lobbying jirrikjedi ammont konsiderevoli ta’ transpareza: hu essenzjali li jkun sganċjat mis-segretezza jew kunfidenzjalità artifiċjali. Fejn il-lobbying hu regolat dan isir billi l-laqgħat jew attivitajiet oħra li jservu għall-lobbying jingħataw pubbliċità biex b’hekk ikun possibli li jsir skrutinju mill-opinjoni pubblika. Il-minuti ta’ dan it-tip ta’ laqgħat ikunu pubbliċi kif għandu jkun ukoll kull dokument u studju assoċjat. Għandna d-dritt li nkunu nafu min u kif qed ifittex li jinfluwenza l-proċess tad-deċiżjonijiet. Dan jassigura li l-lobbying ma jkunx użat bħala għodda sigrieta biex iħarbat il-proċess demokratiku li bih jittieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet politiċi.

Din hi waħda mill-problemi ewlenin li tat kontribut biex tixxettel il-kriżi politika preżenti f’Malta: in-nuqqas ta’ apprezzament tal-ħtieġa ta’ mġiba etika korretta f’kull ħin fil-ħajja pubblika. Problema li jeħtieġilna li niffaċċjawha immedjatament.

 

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : Il-Ħadd ta’ Diċembru 2019

Lobbying and the levers of power

When discussing the politics of lobbying regulation, what is known as the “revolving door” policy is frequently discussed. This is normally understood to mean the accelerated passage of a politician, generally from a senior political role, to a leading role in the corporate world.

The classic example of this was the recruitment by multinational investment bank Goldman Sachs of Josè Manuel Barroso, former President of the European Commission. An EU ethics panel had described Mr Barroso’s behaviour as morally reprehensible, even though it concluded that he was not in breach of the EU Integrity code.

Such behaviour is considered to be an integral part of the lobbying process which requires adequate regulation.

In Malta we do it even better than that, because no rules governing such behaviour exist! This is the result of no agreement on lobbying regulation being reached when the Standards in Public Life legislation was discussed by Parliament. As a result, they postponed the discussion and conveniently added the requirement of formulating lobbying rules to the duties of the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, George Hyzler.

In Malta it has already happened in the recent past, not just in John Dalli’s recruitment by the Marsovin Group but also when the Corinthia Group recruited, at different times, both John Dalli and outgoing EU Commissioner Karmenu Vella. No rules were infringed, bypassed or ignored here as, to put it mildly, regulating ethical behaviour has never been Malta’s strong point. Rather, the local reaction was: why not?

It stands to reason that some would think that if Malta does not regulate the use of “revolving doors” to catapult politicians into the corporate world, why on earth should we regulate it for businessmen intending to do away with the lobbying middlemen and take the levers of power directly into their very hands?

After a long silence, it was very “thoughtful” of Minister of Education Evarist Bartolo to warn us of the perils we face in one of his recent early morning thoughts for the day posted on facebook. Together with his Cabinet colleagues he has had to face Keith Schembri for almost seven years at the Office of the Prime Minister, to name just one such appointment.

When the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life finds time to draft rules regulating lobbying, the issue of “revolving doors” should undoubtedly be high on his list of must dos. In line with lobbying regulations in other jurisdictions he will, hopefully, be proposing a cooling off period as a brake on such appointments. This would mean high-level appointments from the corporate world to the political world (and vice-versa) would need to wait until 18 to 24 months have elapsed between ceasing activity in one sector and entering the other. This is normally intended to dampen the negative lobbying impacts which such appointments lead to. It is inevitable and is intrinsically linked with these types of appointments.

It is also about time for the regulation of lobbying in general. Applying transparency to lobbying is the basic antidote needed.

Lobbying, if done properly and above board, should not lead to bad governance. It is perfectly legitimate for any citizen, group of citizens, corporations or even NGOs to seek to influence decision-taking. It is done continuously and involves the communication of views and information to legislators and administrators by those who have an interest in informing them of the impacts of the decisions under consideration.

It is perfectly legitimate that individuals, acting on their own behalf or else acting on behalf of third parties, should seek to ensure that decision-takers are well informed before taking the required decisions. However, lobbying should not be the process through which the decision-takers make way for the representatives of corporations to take their place.

Lobbying requires a considerable dose of transparency: it needs to be unchained from the shackles of secrecy. In other jurisdictions this is done through actively disclosing information on lobbying activities, thereby placing them under the spotlight of public opinion. The timely publication of minutes, as well as documents and studies relative to meetings held by holders of political office, is essential. The public has a right to know who is seeking to influence the decision-taking process. This helps ensure that lobbying is not used as a tool to secretly derail or deflect the democratic process leading to political decisions.

This is one of the major issues resulting from the political crisis currently engulfing the Maltese islands: essentially an absence of ethics in the public sphere which should be addressed forthwith.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 15 December 2019

L-ostaklu tal-aċċess għall-informazzjoni hu delitt kontra d-demokrazija

Ir-rapport Annwali tal-Ombudsman għall-2017 li kien ippubblikat iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa hu inkwetanti. F’partijiet minnu, nazzarda ngħid li hu ukoll tal-biża’. L-Ombudsman jikkummenta fit-tul dwar “in-nuqqas tal-amministrazzjoni li tipprovdi informazzjoni”.

Josserva żewġ tendenzi ġenerali.

L-ewwel tendenza hi li diversi Dipartimenti tal-Gvern u Ministeri qed isibuha bi tqil biex jiżvelaw informazzjoni importanti. Il-kliem li l-Ombudsman juża’: “Sfortunatament l-amministrazzjoni pubblika – u dan jinkludi ukoll awtoritajiet pubbliċi – jidher li addottaw attitudni ġeneralment negattiva dwar l-obbligu li tkun żvelata informazzjoni u d-dritt taċ-ċittadin li jinżamm infurmat. Uħud marru fl-estrem li anke qed jirrifjutaw li jipprovdu kemm informazzjoni importanti kif ukoll imformazzjoni vitali li l-pubbliku hu ntitolat għaliha minħabba li din tikkonċerna setturi importanti tal-ħajja ekonomika u soċjali tal-pajjiż.”

It-tieni tendenza hi agħar: diversi ftehimiet li daħal għalihom il-Gvern fihom klawsola li tobbliga li jinżamm is-skiet dwar il-kontenut tal-ftehim. Dak li hu magħruf bħala “non-disclosure clause”. L-Ombudsman jgħidilna li issa hawn “żvilupp riċenti u Inkwetanti permezz ta’ attentat biex jiġi assigurat skiet totali hi l-prattika li torbot lil dawk li magħhom l-amministrazzjoni pubblika jkollha rabta kuntrattwali biex ma tiżvelax informazzjoni fil-kuntratti infushom mingħajr l-approvazzjoni tal-awtoritá pubblika.”

Issa fir-realtá, din il-prattika ma ġietx addottata f’daqqa waħda fl-2017. Kien hemm okkazjonijiet fil-passat meta l-Gvern rabat lil oħrajn inkella aċċetta li jintrabat hu stess li ma tkunx żvelata informazzjoni. Jidher imma li din il-prattika qed iżżid fil-frekwenza. Mhux biss il-kuntratt ta’ Henley and Partners dwar il-bejgħ taċ-ċittadinanza li fih dawn il-provedimenti imma ukoll il-kuntratt dwar il-privatizzazzjoni tal-lotteriji pubbliċi mal-Maltco kif ukoll il-ftehim dwar il-privatizzazzjoni parzjali tas-sistema tas-saħħa mal-Vitals Healthcare inkella l-ftehim mal-Electrogas dwar il-qalba għall-gass tal-impjant tal-ġenerazzjoni tal-elettriku f’Delimara.

Kif jista’ jkun li gvern jippretendi li jkun trasparenti u kontabbli meta juża’ jew jippermetti l-użu ta’ strateġiji bħal dawn li jostakolaw li tkun żvelata l-informazzjoni?

L-Ombudsman hu korrett li jipponta subgħajh lejn dan in-nuqqas bażiku ta’ servizz pubbliku li jridha ta’ wieħed ġust, effiċjenti, trasparenti u kontabbli. Jiena naħseb li dan hu daqstant importanti li jimmerita diskussjoni fil-Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali – jekk din xi darba issir. Forsi wasal iż-żmien li tkun il-Kostituzzjoni innifisha li tillimita b’mod strett lill-amministrazzjoni pubblika milli tibqa’ tillimita l-aċċess għall-informazzjoni b’dan il-mod.

Hu meħtieġ li jkollna s-salvagwardji kontra dan l-abbuż sfaċċat li qiegħed jostakola l-aċċess għall-informazzjoni li għandha f’idejha l-amministrazzjoni pubblika. Is-salvagwardji jistgħu jinkludu l-possibilitá ta’ reviżjoni amministrattiva immedjata li tikkanċella l-ostaklu għall-aċċess kif ukoll passi biex dawk responsabbli biex jostakolaw dan l-aċċess għall-informazzjoni mingħajr raġuni valida ma jitħallewx iktar jeżerċitaw il-funzjonijiet ta’ uffiċċju pubbliku.

L-Ombudsman jispjega fir-rapport tiegħu li l-liġi tagħti lill-uffiċċju tiegħu l-għodda meħtieġa biex ikollu aċċess għall-informazzjoni li jeħtieġ ħalli “jmexxi l-investigazzjonijiet dwar l-ilmenti li jkunu waslu” avolja din l-informazzjoni xi drabi tingħata b’mod imqanżaħ. Iżda l-Ombudsman iqis li għandu jiġbed l-attenzjoni għal tlett ċirkustanzi partikolari “li juru kif ir-rispons negattiv tal-awtoritajiet pubbliċi meta dawn jintalbu informazzjoni qed ixekkel l-Ombudsman u lill-Kummissarji fl-uffiċċju tiegħu fil-qadi ta’ dmirijiethom”.

L-ewwel kaz jirrigwarda l-Armata. Ir-rifjut tal-Ministeru għall-Intern u s-Sigurtá Nazzjonali li jgħaddi l-files kollha dwar l-eżerċizzji ta’ promozzjonijiet għall-għola gradi fl-Armata issolva biss wara d-deċiżjoni finali tal-Qorti tal-Appell f’Ottubru 2016 liema deċiżjoni ikkonfermat li Ombudsman kellu l-obbligu li jinvestiga l-ilmenti li rċieva.

It-tieni kaz jirrigwarda ir-rifjut tal-Ministeru tas-Saħħa li jipprovdi l-informazzjoni mitluba mill-Kummissarju għas-Saħħa biex dan jipprovdi il-ftehim sħiħ ma’ Vitals Healthcare dwar il-privatizzazzjoni ta’ sptarijiet f’Malta u Għawdex li kien meħtieġ fl-investigazzjoni dwar jekk l-interessi tal-pazjenti u l-istaff (mediku) kienux adegwatament imħarsa.

It-tielet kaz hu dwar l-ilmenti kontinwa tal-Kummissarji fl-uffiċċju tal-Ombudsman (Saħħa, Ippjanar/Ambjent u Edukazzjoni) dwar id-dewmien li qed jirriżulta f’investigazzjonijiet li jkunu jeħtieġu konklużjoni immedjata. Dan minħabba n-nuqqas tas-settur pubbliku li jagħti tweġiba għat-talbiet diversi għal informazzjoni.

L-obbligu tal-amministrazzjoni pubblika li tiffaċilita l-aċċess għall-informazzjoni u d-dritt taċ-ċittadin li jkun infurmat huma bażiċi f’soċjetá demokratika. Attentati biex dan l-aċċess taċ-ċittadin għall-informazzjoni jkun imblukkat b’dan il-mod jimmina l-proċess demokratiku u dan billi ċ-ċittadin qed ikun ostakolat milli jifforma opinjoni fuq kif qed ikun amministrat l-istat. Dan qiegħed ukoll jostakola lil dawk l-istituzzjonijiet fid-dmir li jiddefendu ċ-ċittadin komuni milli jagħmlu xogħolhom.

F’isem Alternattiva Demokratika jiena nirringrazzja lill- Ombudsman talli qed ikun daqstant ċar fid-difiża tiegħu ta’ dak li hu bażiku f’soċjetá demokratika kif ukoll talli qed isemma’ leħnu b’vuċi ċara kontra dan l-abbuż ta’ poter.

Ippubblikat f’Illum Il-Ħadd : 10 ta’ Ġunju 2018

Obstructing access to information is a crime against democracy

The Ombudsman’s 2017 Annual Report, published earlier this week, is very worrying. At times it makes scary reading. The Ombudsman comments at length on “the failure by the administration to provide information” and points at two general trends.

The first of these is the reluctance of various Government Departments and Ministries to disclose important information. The exact words  from the Ombudsman’s report,  which I quote verbatim, are: “Regrettably the public administration – and this includes public authorities – appears to have adopted a generally negative approach towards its duty to disclose information and the citizen’s right to be informed. Some have gone to extremes by even refusing to provide important and even vital information to which the public was obviously entitled since it concerned important segments of the economic and social life of the country.”

The second trend is even worse: various agreements entered into by government are containing a non-disclosure clause. The Ombudsman states “An even more worrying, recent development that has come to light in an attempt to ensure a total blackout of silence is the practice of binding parties with whom the public administration enters into contractual agreements not to disclose information on the contracts themselves without prior approval from the public authority.”

Now, in fairness, this practice has not been adopted suddenly in 2017. There have been a number of instances in the past where the government bound others, or else accepted to be bound, not to disclose information. Apparently this is now increasing in frequency. It is not just the contract with Henley and Partners on the sale of Maltese citizenship which contains such provisions but also the contract concerning the privatisation of the public lottery system with Maltco, as well as the agreements on the partial privatisation of the Health service with Vitals Healthcare as well as the Electrogas agreements in relation to the Delimara power station changeover to gas.

How can a government claim to be transparent and accountable when it uses or permits the use of the non-disclosure weapon?

The Ombudsman is right to point out this basic deficiency of a public service which pretends that it is fair, efficient, transparent and accountable. I consider that it is also of such importance that it merits discussion in the Constitutional Convention, if this is ever convened. Maybe it is about time that the Constitution should limit very strictly the use by the public administration of non-disclosure as a tool to obstruct the public’s access to information.

Safeguards are required against the abusive use of the non-disclosure of information held by the public administration. Such safeguards could include access to fast track administrative review as well as both publication of the suppressed information and the prohibition from holding public office of those found guilty of blocking the public’s access to information without valid reason.

The Ombudsman explains in his report that the law provides his office with the tools to ensure that it has access to the information it requires “to conduct its investigations into complaints received”, even though this information is at times made available very reluctantly. However, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to underline three specific instances “that show how the negative response of public authorities to provide information hindered the Ombudsman and his Commissioners in the exercise of their functions”.

The first instance is that concerning the Armed Forces of Malta. The refusal by the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security to provide all files relating to promotion exercises in the top echelons of the AFM was only resolved after a definite decision of the Court of Appeal in October 2016, which confirmed that the Ombudsman had a duty to investigate the complaints received.

The second instance is that concerning the refusal of the Ministry of Health to comply with the request of the Commissioner of Health to supply “clean copies” of the agreements with Vitals Healthcare on the privatisation of hospitals in Malta and Gozo which were required in the investigation into whether the interests of patients and staff were being adequately protected.

The third instance is that of repeated complaints in all the reports of the Commissioners attached to the Ombudsman’s office [Health, Planning/Environment and Education] on the resulting delay in investigations which, by their very nature, require an immediate response. These delays are the direct result of the failure of various sectors in the public administration to submitting an expedient reply to requests for information.

The duty of the public administration to disclose information, and the right of the citizen  to be informed, is basic in a democratic society. Attempts to block the essential flow of information to the citizen through non-disclosure tools undermines the democratic process, as it blocks the essential elements required by the citizen in order to form a clear and unbiased opinion on the way in which the state is being administered. Moreover, it obstructs those institutions entrusted with defending the common citizen from carrying out their duty.

On behalf of Alternattiva Demokratika-The Green Party, I thank the Ombudsman for taking such a clear and unequivocal stand in favour of the basic tenets of democratic rule and against such blatant abuse of authority.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 10 June 2018

X’qed jaħbu f’Dar Malta fi Brussels ?

 

Fi studju mħejji minn ALTER-EU (Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation – grupp ta’ NGOs li jaħdmu favur it-trasparenza) ippubblikat f’Marzu li għadda ma tantx jidher li r-rapprezentanti ta’ Malta fi Brussels jipprattikaw wisq it-trasparenza.

Matul l-2015 ALTER-EU talbet lil diversi rapprezentanti ta’ pajjiżi membri fl-Unjoni Ewropea biex jinfurmawhom permezz tal-proċeduri tal-Freedom of Information Act dwar il-lista ta’ laqgħat li r-rapprezentanti ta’ Malta fi Brussels kellhom ma dawk imsejħa lobbyists – jiġifieri dawk li jfittxu li jinfluwenzaw it-teħid ta’ deċiżjonijiet u l-formolazzjoni ta’ policy fl-istituzzjonijiet ewropej.

Ir-rapprezentanti ta’ Malta fi Brussels (skond ir-rapport) kienu ta’ wieħed minn żewġ pajjiżi li irrifjutaw li jagħtu din l-informazzjoni. L-oħrajn kienu r-rapprezentanti tar-Renju Unit.

X’qed jaħbu f’Dar Malta fi Brussels?