Standards fil-Ħajja Pubblika: għadna nistennew

Is-sit tal-Ministeru tal-Ġustizzja jindika b’mod ċar li l-Att XIII tal-2017 imsejjaħ Att dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika għadu ma daħalx fis-seħħ. Din il-liġi irċiviet il-kunsens tal-President tar-Repubblika nhar it-30 ta’ Marzu 2017 wara li damet perjodu twil pendenti fuq l-aġenda tal-Parlament. Jidher li għad baqgħalna x’nistennew, għax il-partiti politiċi fil-parlament ma tantx jdher li għandhom għaġla.

Il-liġi tipprovdi għall-ħatra ta’ Kummissarju dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika. Dan il-Kummissarju jista’ jkun approvat biss kemm-il darba jikseb il-kunsens ta’ żewġ terzi tal-membri parlamentari. Fi ftit kliem irid ikun hemm qbil dwar il-ħatra tiegħu jew tagħha bejn il-Gvern u l-Opposizzjoni li, sa fejn naf jien, għandhom ma qablux. S’issa ħadd ma jaf xejn, l-anqas jekk ġewx proposti ismijiet, minn min u x’kienet ir-reazzjoni dwarhom.

Il-liġi approvata tapplika għall-Membri kollha tal-Parliament, inkluż il-membri tal-Kabinett. Tapplika wkoll għal dawk il-persuni maħtura f’posizzjoni ta’ fiduċja (position of trust) fil-Ministeri u s-Segretarjati Parlamentari.

Meta iktar kmieni matul din il-ġimgħa iltqajt mal-Ispeaker tal-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti, l-Onorevoli Anġlu Farrugia, jiena emfasizzajt li dan id-dewmien biex tkun implimentata din il-liġi dwar l-imġieba xierqa tal-Membri Parlamentari u dawk maħtura f’posizzjoni ta’ fiducja qiegħed jibgħat messaġġ ċar ħafna: li l-Membri Parlamentari m’għandhom l-ebda ħeġġa biex iwieġbu għal egħmilhom.

Jiena niftakar lill-Ispeaker, xi snin ilu, jemfasizza li hu ma kienx sodisfatt mill-kontenut tad-dikjarazzjonijiet tal-assi sottomessi minn uħud mill-Membri Parlamentari. Issa għandu l-għodda biex jinvestiga dwar il-veraċitá ta’ dawn id-dikjarazzjonijiet imma sfortunatament m’huwiex jitħalla jagħmel użu minnhom! Il-Membri Parlamentari għandhom jagħtu kont ta’ egħmilhom, iżda l-fatt li l-liġi dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika għadha ma daħlitx fis-seħħ qiegħed jostakola dan milli jseħħ.

Meta tħares lejn dan in-nuqqas ta’ implimentazzjoni tal-liġi waħdu tista’ tinterpretah bħala tkaxkir tas-saqajn mill-Membri Parlamentari u l-mexxejja tagħhom li jippreferu ma jitqegħdux taħt il-lenti tal-iskrutinjun pubbliku. Imma meta dan kollu tqisu fil-kuntest tar-rapport annwali tal-Ombudsman għas-sena 2017 huwa ċar li dan it-tkaxkir tas-saqajn m’huwiex limitat iżda hu mifrux ħafna. Id-dritt tal-aċċess għall-informazzjoni dwar il-ħidma tal-amministrazzjoni pubblika qiegħed taħt assedju.

Il-kontabiltá u it-trasparenza m’humiex slogans. L-anqas huma negozjabbli. Huma valuri fundamentali li jiffurmaw parti essenzjali mis-sisien tal-istat demokratiku.

Jiena tlabt lill-Ispeaker biex jiġbed l-attenzjoni tal-Kumitat tax-Xogħol tal-Kamra li dan it-tkaxkir tas-saqajn biex ikun implimentat l-Att dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika mhuwiex aċċettabbli. Huwa essenzjali li l-liġi tkun implimentata malajr kemm jista’ jkun jekk iriduna nemmnu li għall-partiti politiċi fil-parlament il-kontabilitá tfisser xi ħaga.

B’żieda mar-responsabbiltá li jinvestiga l-imġieba kemm tal-Membri Parlamentari kif ukoll dik tal-persuni ta’ fiduċja, il-Kummissarju għall-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika ser ikollu ukoll l-inkarigu li jfassal kemm il-linji gwida kif ukoll ir-regolamenti proposti dwar l-attivitá tal-lobbying. Dwar din l-attivitá b’implikazzjonijiet etiċi sostanzjali l-partiti politiċi fil-Parlament ma qablux meta din il-liġi kienet qed tiġi ikkunsidrata quddiem il-Kumitat Parlamentari għall-konsiderazzjoni tal-abbozzi ta’ liġijiet. Bħala riżultat ta’ dan Il-materja intefgħet f’ħoġor il-Kummissarju dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika li meta jinħatar ser ikun hu li jkollu jfassal kemm il-linji gwida kif ukoll r-regolamenti proposti.

Il-lobbying hi attivitá essenzjali fil-ħajja pubblika. Jeħtieġ iżda li issir b’mod li jkun assigurat illi d-deċiżjonijiet mittieħda mill-politiċi jkunu kemm trasparenti kif ukoll b’rispett sħiħ lejn r-regoli bażiċi tal-etika.

Il-lobbying huwa ta’ influwenza kontinwa fuq id-deċiżjoniiet li jittieħdu. Huwa essenzjali li dan issir b’mod mill-iktar trasparenti biex ikun ċar għal kulħadd dwar liema interessi jkunu qed jiġu mmexxija l-quddiem. Dan bla dubju jfisser li ikun meħtieġ il-pubblikazzjoni ta’ ammont mhux żgħir ta’ informazzjoni li presentement hi fil-pussess ta’ membri tal-Kabinett u li ġeneralment tibqa’ fil-files – meta tkun miktuba. Din hi informazzjoni li ġeneralment tkun il-bażi għall-azzjonijiet u d-deċiżjonijiet li jittieħdu.

Bla ebda dubju, il-linji gwida u r-regolamenti dwar il-lobbying iridu jindirizzaw u jirregolaw x’jista’jagħmel membru tal-Kabinett meta jispiċċa mill-ħatra, materja magħrufa bħala revolving door policy. Dan minħabba li s-settur regolat mill-Ministru jkollu għatx għal informazzjoni (kunfidenzjali) li dan ikun kiseb kemm ikun ilu fil-ħatra kif ukoll għall-kuntatti u influwenzi akkumulati fuq dawk li jieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet. Xi drabi għaldaqstant meta Ministru jew Segretarju Parlamentari, hekk kif itemm il-ħatra tiegħu ikun offrut impieg f’dak l-istess settur li ftit qabel ikun dipendenti minnu jeħtieġ li nieqfu ftit. Dan ovvjament għax miegħu iġorr aċċess akkumulat kemm għal informazzjoni miksuba kif ukoll għal kuntatti u influwenza fuq il-proċess deċiżjonali. Il-linji gwida u r-regolamenti jridu jistabilixxu kemm jeħtieġ li jgħaddi żmien qabel ma dan ikun jista’ jseħħ. .

Huwa dan kollu li qed nistennew. Hemm ħafna li jeħtieġ li jsir imma ma jidher li hemm l-ebda impenn biex dan isir.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : 1 ta’ Lulju 2018 

Standards in Public Life: still waiting for Godot

The website of the Ministry of Justice clearly indicates that Act XIII of 2017 entitled Standards in Public Life Act is not yet in force. This statute received Presidential assent on  30 March 2017 after an elephantine gestation period. It seems that we are in for a long wait as the parliamentary political parties do not seem to be in any hurry.

The Act provides for the appointment of a Commissioner for Standards in Public Life. The Commissioner can only be appointed if two-thirds of Members of Parliament agree with the nomination, and as far as I am aware there has been no agreement so far between Government and Opposition on the matter. The name or names proposed to date are not in the public domain.

The Act applies to all Members of Parliament, including the members of Cabinet. Moreover, it also applies to those appointed to a position of trust in Ministries and Parliamentary Secretariats.

When I met the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Hon Anġlu Farrugia, earlier this week, I emphasised the fact that the delay in implementing this legislation on the ethical behaviour of Members of Parliament and those appointed in positions of trust is sending one clear message: that Members of Parliament are not that eager to be accountable for their actions.

I do remember the Speaker – some years back – emphasising the fact that he was not satisfied with the contents of the asset declarations submitted annually by some MPs. He now has the tools to investigate the veracity (or otherwise) of such declarations but is, unfortunately, being prevented from doing so. MPs should be accountable for their actions, but the non-implementation of the Standards in Public Life Act is preventing such accountability.

On its own, this lack of implementation could be interpreted as a reluctance of MPs and their leaders to be personally placed under the spotlight of public opinion. However, when viewed in the context of the 2017 Ombudsman’s annual report, it is very clear that this reluctance is widespread. The right of access to information on the workings of the public administration is under siege.

Accountability and transparency are not slogans and, moreover, they are non-negotiable. They are fundamental values which underpin the democratic state.

I have asked Mr Speaker to draw the attention of the House Business Committee to the fact that this procrastination in implementing the Standards in Public Life Act is not acceptable. Its implementation is a must if we are to believe that the commitment of parliamentary political parties goes beyond slogans.

In addition to investigating the behaviour of Members of Parliament and that of people appointed to positions of trust, the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life will have the task of drawing up guidelines and a proposal for regulations on lobbying activities. This is another ethical minefield in respect of which there was no agreement between the parliamentary political parties when the draft legislation was under consideration in the Parliamentary Committee for the Consideration of Bills. As a result, instead of spelling out the required regulatory regime, the matter was postponed and added to the responsibilities of the future Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, whoever he or she may be.

Lobbying is an essential and unavoidable element of public life. However, it has to be placed under the spotlight to ensure a fuller transparency of the decisions taken by the holders of political office. In addition to subjecting lobbying to clear transparency rules, it is essential that the ethical issues linked to lobbying are addressed forthwith.

Lobbying continually influences decision-making. It is imperative that transparency rules are applied to lobbying so that it be clear to one and all as to whose interests are being advanced and defended. This would undoubtedly include the publication of a substantial amount of information to which Cabinet Ministers are currently privy, which information (generally) forms the basis for their actions and decisions.

Undoubtedly, lobbying guidelines and regulations have to address the issue of revolving doors recruitment, as a result of which politicians may be available for sale at the taxpayers expense. A policy addressing the issue of revolving doors recruitment would also regulate the cooling-off period required for a Minster or Parliamentary Secretary to take up employment (after termination of office) in the sector which was subject to his regulation authority.

This is what we are waiting for. Like Samuel Beckett’s characters in his “Waiting for Godot”. Godot never arrives.

 

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 1 July 2018

Fid-dell ta’ Aliyev

Għadu kmieni biex wieħed jifforma opinjoni dwar kemm il-Bank ta’ Pilatus kien qed jirriċikla l-flus maħmuġin mal-erbat irjieħ tad-dinja f’isem il-klijenti tiegħu. Dan minħabba li l-fatti, dejjem jekk seħħew, s’issa la ġew spjegati biżżejjed u l-anqas sostanzjati fil-pubbliku.

Allegazzjonijiet isiru l-ħin kollu imma ftit ikunu sostanzjati. Meta dawn il-provi ma jkunux imperċin dan ikun ifisser jew li ma seħħux kif intqal, inkella li dawn il-provi ser jibqgħu kunfidenzjali għax ikun meħtieġ li jkun protett is-sors tal-informazzjoni.

Il-gravitá tal-allegazzjonijiet bil-fors tqajjem punt interogattiv dwar jekk dak li jkun qed jintqal hux minnu jew le. Avolja qegħdin fi żmien li ma tantx ser nistagħġbu jekk dak allegat seħħx verament.

Nafu li t-tmexxija tal-Ażerbajġan hi waħda minn l-iktar korrotti fid-dinja u għalhekk anke l-fatt biss li pajjiżna qed jidher viċin wisq ta’ dan il-pajjiż hu minnu innifsu ta’ tħassib. Bħalma hu tad-daħq, jew forsi aħjar tal-biki ż–żjarat spissi tal-Ispeaker tal-Parlament Malti f’dan il-pajjiż fejn spiss smajnieh jgħidilna kemm hu demokratiku u trasparenti Aliyev. Ovvjament dawn iċ–certifikati ta’ Anglu Farrugia ftit jikkonvinċu nies dwar Aliyev, imma bla dubju jixħtu dell konsiderevoli fuq dak li Mr Speaker jifhem b’demokrazija u trasparenza.

Huwa f’dan il-kuntest li wieħed irid ipoġġi dak li qed jintqal.

Għax pajjiżna jidher li dieħel fl-industrija tar-riċiklaġġ. Mhux dik assoċjata mal-ħarisen tal-ambjent imma l-prodott tal-korruzzjoni.

L-Onorevoli jerġa’ jagħmilha

Hi sfortuna li d-dibattitu politiku fil-pajjiż reġa’ qiegħed jikkarga.

Il-Parlament hu l-post fejn issir il-kritika. Imma l-kritika, anke jekk iebsa m’għandiex tkun insolenti. L-insulti ma jagħmlu ġid lil ħadd: la lil min jgħidhom u l-anqas lil min jirċievihom.

Il-każi riċenti li dwarhom l-Ispeaker Anġlu Farrugia kien kostrett li jagħti ruling, għal wieħed tnejn huma inkwetanti, għax ifisser li fuq naħa waħda hemm min qed jitlef rasu u fuq in-naħa l-oħra hemm min hu sensittiv iż–żejjed.

Ovvjament kullħadd tad-demm u l-laħam u meta tkun ilek taqla’ ġo fik, fl-aħħar tixpakka. Dak li qed jiġri bħalissa fil-Parlament. Diskors li ma jagħmel la ġid u l-anqas ġieħ lil ħadd.

Kien floku kliem l-iSpeaker li ipprova jberred ftit l-affarijiet billi ta’ ċans biex dak li jkun jerġa’ jaħsibha u forsi juża’ kliem iktar addattat.

Imma jidher li ċerti nies ma jitgħallmu qatt.

Anġlu Farrugia qed iħawwad

Il-Parlament il-lejla ddiskuta d-deċiżjoni li ħa l-Ispeaker Anġlu Farrugia li ma aċċettax bħala valida l-mozzjoni ta’ Marlene Farrugia għax din fittxet li tiċċensura lil Keith Schembri l-Kasco, ċ-Chief of Staff fl-uffiċċju tal-Prim Ministru.

Presentment hemm pendenti fuq l-aġenda tal-Parlament, abbożż ta’ liġi imsejjaħ Att tal-2014 dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika.

Dan l-abbozz ta’ liġi hu riżultat ta’ diskussjoni dwar l-etika fil-ħajja pubblika li saret f’kumitat magħżul tal-Kamra li fih ħa sehem ukoll l-Ispeaker Anġlu Farrugia. Punt interessanti li joħroġ minn dan l-abbozz hu li skond l-artiklu 3 tal-abbozz l-persuni “in a position of trust” huma ukoll soġġetti għal skrutinju tal-Parlament.

Anġlu Farrugia kien qabel ma dan. Allura issa għaliex bidel il-ħsieb?

Dan x‘taħwid hu Anġ?

L-awtonomija amministrattiva tal-Parlament

 

Il-Parlament jerġa’ jiltaqa’ llum, wara l-waqfa għall-btajjel tal-Milied.

Fuq quddiem fl-aġenda tal-lejla hemm għad-diskussjoni abbozz ta’ liġi dwar is-servizz Parlamentari. Permezz ta’ din il-liġi, meta tkun approvata, l-Parlament ser jingħata l-awtonomija amministrattiva.

Din hi inizjattiva li ilha li bdiet is-snin, miż-żmien li kien Speaker Anton Tabone, imma ngħatat spinta kbira mill-iSpeaker Michael Frendo. L-iSpeaker attwali Anġlu Farrugia wassal il-proposta sal-punt tal-lum.

L-abbozz ta’ liġi jipprovdi għall-ingaġġ tal-impjegati tal-Parlament, li ser jkun separat minn dak tas-servizz pubbliku, kif ukoll jipprovdi għal budget tal-Parlament li jkun wieħed approvat mill-Parlament separatament mill-budget normali.

F’Settembru 2012, Tonio Borg li dakinnhar kien Ministru għall-Affarijiet tal-Parlament kien ħareġ White Paper intitolata : Il-Parlament Malti: Iktar Awtonomija Iktar Responsabbiltà.

L-awtonomija amministrattiva tal-Parlament hi pass fid-direzzjoni tajba. Xi darba ma tafx kif, forsi jirrealizzaw ukoll li ilu li wasal iż-żmien li l-membri parlamentari jeħtieġ li jkunu kollha fulltimers.

Imma issa drajna nimxu bil-mod. Fl-aħħar imma naslu ukoll!

Simon qed joħlom, jew ………

 

Il-każ tad-diesel tal-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni tfaċċa f’daqqa. Il-pubbliku ma kien jaf xejn bil-każ qabel il-bieraħ. Jidher li l-amministrazzjoni tal-Parlament innutat dak li dehrilha li kienu diskrepanzi bejn id-diesel ikkunsmat u l-użu effettiv tal-karozza mħallsa minn fondi pubbliċi li jagħmel użu minnha l-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni. Milli qed jintqal intalbet spjegazzjoni imma mid-dehra din l-ispjegazzjoni ma kienitx ta’ sodisfazzjon. Għalhekk infetħet inkjesta bil-maġistrat.

Mingħajr ma tkun taf il-fatti sewwa diffiċli biex tgħid jekk kienx meħtieġ jew le li tinfetaħ inkjesta bil-maġistrat.

Il-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni qed jgħid li hu għadu ma fehemx x’inhu jiġi allegat għax safejn jaf hu ma hemm xejn irregolari. L-infieq massimu stabilit għad-diesel ma nqabiżx. Skond il-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni, il-konsum tad-diesel m’huwiex wieħed eċċessiv, anke meta dan tqabblu ma karozzi oħra.

Huwa inkwetanti ħafna imma dak li qal il-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni li l-inkjesta dwaru hi xi forma ta’ vendetta għal dak li ġara matul dawn l-aħħar ġranet fil-Parlament. Simon Busuttil hu rappurtat li qal li hi ko-inċidenza stramba li l-inkjesta dwar il-konsum tad-diesel tħabbret l-għada li l-opposizzjoni ppubblikat dokument dwar it-tmexxija tajba (good governance) u ġimgħa wara li huwa ikkontesta ruling tal-Ispeaker (fil-kaz Joe Debono Grech/Marlene Farrugia).

X’ġara eżattament għad irid ikun stabilit għax dan s’issa m’huwiex magħruf ħlief (forsi) minn dawk direttament involuti. Hemm żewġ affarijiet serji involuti li jeħtieġ li jkunu ċċarati malajr kemm jista’ jkun: il-frodi allegati u agħar minn hekk l-allegazzjoni ta’ tpattija.

Minn dak li ntqal, hu possibli, li, fl-aħħar, wara kollox tinstab spjegazzjoni li tiġġustifika l-konsum tad-diesel imma dwar l-allegazzjoni ta’ vendetta għandna għaliex inkunu inkwetati ħafna. Għax jew Simon Busuttil qed joħlom inkella hemm problema serja ħafna fit-tmexxija tal-Parlament.

Il-maqjel ta’ Renzo Piano

 

Meta l-Ispeaker Anġlu Farrugia f’mument ta’ storbju fil-Parlament esklama li l-Parlament m’huwiex maqjel kien qed jagħmel osservazzjoni li bosta ilhom jagħmlu. Ikun hemm mumenti fejn l-ambjent Parlamentari ikun wieħed moqżież.

Fortunatament dawn il-mumenti ma jseħħux b’mod frekwenti.

Il-kawża ta’ dan kollu huwa n-nuqqas ta’ rispett lejn opinjonijiet differenti li hi ukoll riflessa fin-nuqqas ta’ diskussjoni serja fil-partiti politiċi ewlenin infushom.  Din hi l-bidla mill-qiegħ li hi meħtieġa fil-politika Maltija: li nirrispettaw iktar l-opinjonijiet differenti.

Huwa faċli li tirrispetta lil min jaqbel  miegħek, ma trid tagħmel l-ebda sforz għal dan. Id-diffikultà hi biex tirrispetta lil min ma jaqbilx miegħek.

F’soċjetà li hi sfortunatament ippolarizzata fil-livelli kollha tagħha naf li dan hu diffiċli ħafna. Il-soċjetà tagħna tipprietka kontinwament li min mhux magħna, kontra tagħna. Li tagħna hu l-aħjar u li l-oħrajn ma jiswewx.

L-użu ta’ dan il-kliem mhuwiex sempliċiment retorika,  iżda l-bażi tal-eżistenza tal-partiti politiċi ewlenin.

Għalhekk maqjel.

Wara d-dibattitu jibqa’ ċ-ċpar

Fil-waqt li hu tajjeb li d-dibattitu dwar il-mozzjoni tal-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni dwar ir-ruling tal-Ispeaker Anġlu Farrugia sar mill-ewwel, sfortunatment  ma solva xejn.

Il-Gvern, m’għandix dubju, fehem li kien meħtieġ rimedju immedjat biex b’xi mod jittaffa l-messaġġ negattiv tar-ruling tal-Ispeaker fuq il-kaz Marlene Farrugia/Joe Debono Grech. Għalhekk l-apoloġija bil-miktub minn Joe Debono Grech. Apoloġija li giet 5 ijiem tard.

Id-diskorsi li saru ma tantx kienu ta’ għajnuna biex jasal messaġġ ċar. L-argument ta’ “aħjar tara x’għamilt int” , ma jikkonvinċi lil ħadd illum il-ġurnata. L-anqas it-tidwir mal-lewża, f’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi, xejn ma jgħin.

Spiċċajna b’dibatttu bi Gvern jipprova jnaqqas l-impatti negattivi fil-media u l-opinjoni pubblika u Kap tal-Opposizzjoni jipprova jagħsar kemm jiflaħ is-sitwazzjoni għal kull vantaġġ politiku possibli.

It-tagħlima hi waħda għal kulħadd. Tippruvax tiġġustifika l-iżbalji tiegħek (jew tan-naħa tiegħek) billi tkabbar l-iżbalji ta’ ħaddieħor. Kif ukoll, fejn hemm il-problemi, ipprova solvihom, mhux tkabbarhom biex tidher sabiħ int!

Lobbying: influencing decision-taking

 

Lobbying risks corruption. Establishing clear standards of acceptable behaviour in public life ought to include the regulation of lobbying, yet the Standards in Public Life Bill currently pending on the Parliament’s agenda ignores this important matter completely.

Potentially, lobbying is not a dirty matter. 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. Obviously, lobbying should not be the process through which the decision-takers make way for the representatives of corporations to take their place.

I am not aware of the reason why the Parliamentary Select Committee, led by Hon Speaker Anġlu Farrugia, failed to identify lobbying as a matter which requires regulation within the framework of the Standards in Public Life Bill. Perusal of the final report dated 24 March 2014, as well as the minutes of the Select Committee, does not reveal any indication that the matter was ever even mentioned in the Select Committee’s deliberations. In fact in my opinion, perusal of Parliament’s Motion 77, which contains the Select Committee’s terms of reference, indirectly includes lobbying as one of the matters which had to be examined.

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 lobbying activities, thereby placing them under the spotlight of public opinion. The public has a right to know who is seeking to influence the decision-taking process and this helps ensure that lobbying is not used as a tool to secretly derail or deflect political decisions.

Other jurisdictions require that lobbying activities are documented and that the official being lobbied is always accompanied. Subsequently a list of lobbying meetings and the resulting documentation is released or made available. Such disclosure is normal in various democracies.

Lobbying can be regulated in two ways: by regulating the lobbyist activities and by regulating the potential recipient of lobbying.

The activities of the lobbyist can be regulated either through a compulsory registration of lobbyists or else through a regular disclosure of the names of those carrying out lobbying activities.

On the other hand, the potential recipient of lobbying ought to be regulated through a disclosure of all information related to lobbying, including minutes of meetings as well as any memoranda exchanged or submitted for the consideration of the decision-taker.

Full transparency is undoubtedly the best tool which – together with guidelines on the permissible receipt of gifts as well as whistle-blowing – will reduce the risk of lobbying being transformed into an instrument of corruption.

This is not all. Malta also requires rules that regulate the lobbying that is carried out through revolving-door recruitment. At times, this is the easiest way in which special interest groups recruit former Ministers, as well as the former high ranking civil servants regulating them, immediately on concluding their term of office. In this manner, they seek to tap contacts and quasi-direct access to or knowledge of information of extreme sensitivity. It also happens in reverse, when the public sector recruits lobbyists directly into the civil service without first having allowed sufficient time for cooling off so that former lobbyists thus recruited risk being Trojan horses in the public sector areas which previously regulated them.

If we are really serious about tackling corruption at its roots, it would be better if the need to regulate lobbying is urgently considered. Together with legislation on the financing of political parties just approved by Parliament (even if this is defective, as I have explained elsewhere), the regulation of lobbying would create a better tool-kit in the fight against corruption.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday 26 July 2015