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

Lobbying risks corruption

 

In a democratic society, lobbying is a potentially legitimate activity. It 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, 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.

Free and open access to decision takers is an important matter of public interest. It is perfectly legitimate but ought to be regulated and the resulting information adequately and appropriately disclosed. The difficulty, as always, is where to draw the line. It must be ensured that society protects itself against the corruption risks involved in lobbying when this is secretive and unregulated.

The manner in which Dalligate is unfolding in the EU institutions clearly underlines this preoccupation.  The European Institutions have lobbying rules.  The basic issue of Dalligate is in my view not whether former EU Commissioner John Dalli resigned or was dismissed. Rather, in line with the Code of Conduct for Commissioners, the issue is whether he “acted in a manner that is in keeping with the dignity and duties” of his office when meeting with lobbyists away from the Commission offices, unaccompanied, and such that what went on during the meetings is not documented but known only to a couple of persons. Even if everything said in such meetings was above board, the fact that they were held is itself unacceptable. John Dalli claims, most probably correctly, that he was entrapped by the tobacco industry. Being so naive as to facilitate his own entrapment, it was right that he should go without a whimper. Instead we were regaled with theatrics which have served no useful purpose, not even for John Dalli.

All this is further compounded by the additional very serious allegation that representatives of the tobacco industry met with other senior officials of the EU Commission without these meetings being disclosed and documented.  Emily O’Reilly Ombudsman of the European Union is currently carrying out an investigation at the request of Corporate Europe Observatory on fourteen such meetings.

Corporate Europe Observatory, a watchdog based in Brussels and campaigning for greater transparency and accountability in decision taking, estimates that in Brussels alone there are around 30,000 lobbyists. Compare this to the around 24,000 staff employed by the European Commission as on 31 December 2013 and you get a glimpse of what’s going on in the corridors of Brussels. Lobbying in Brussels is a billion euro industry which seeks to influence and at times deflect political decisions. The regulation of lobbying seeks to place a spotlight on the source of influence and hopefully to counter attempts to derail or deflect political decisions.

There is a continuous debate in the EU institutions on fine tuning the rules regulating lobbying. In 2011 the European Parliament approved an “Inter-institutional agreement on a Common Transparency Register between the Parliament and the Commission”. This register provides for the voluntary registering of lobbyists active in the EU institutions. It is hoped that during the current EU Parliament’s term the registration of lobbyists in Brussels will be a compulsory matter. This may happen when the issues raised by Dalligate are finally addressed, possibly within the next few months.

Closer to home, a Parliamentary Select Committee has concluded its workings on Standards in Public Life. The Select Committee generally did a good job. It produced a final report which Mr Speaker laid on the Table of the House on the 24 March 2014. The report, including the proposed legislation attached to the said report, deals with the behaviour of Members of Parliament (including members of Cabinet) and persons appointed to positions of trust in the public sector (including statutory authorities) primarily with reference to their declaration of assets as well as with reference to a Code of Ethics which has been in force since 1994.  Surprisingly there is no direct reference to lobbying in the workings and conclusions of the Parliamentary Select Committee.

Lobbying, as is normal, is very much existent in Malta too. It would be appropriate if it is addressed by ensuring that it is regulated, documented and disclosed where appropriate. However it seems that currently there are no plans to regulate lobbying in Malta. If we are really serious on tackling corruption at its roots it would be better if the need to regulate lobbying is urgently reconsidered. Together with legislation on the financing of political parties, the regulation of lobbying would create a quasi complete tool-kit in the fight against corruption.

published in The Times of Malta – 21 July 2014