EPaper

Hyzler says composition of Standards Committee puts ‘unfair pressure’ on the Speaker

KEVIN SCHEMBRI ORLAND

The composition of the Parliamentary Standards Committee puts “unfair pressure” on the Speaker of the House to act as a referee, Standards Commissioner George Hyzler said.

In an interview with The Malta Independent on Sunday, Hyzler, who will be stepping down from his post to join the European Court of Auditors later this year, said that discussions on reports referred to the Standards Committee are often treated as partisan political issues by the MPs.

The Standards Committee is composed of two PN MPs and two PL MPs, with the Speaker of the House as its chairman.

“You have to bear in mind that the committee only discusses reports where the Commissioner has found a breach of the Code of Ethics, of a statutory duty or an abuse of a discretionary power.”

“If there’s a breach by an MP from one party, the members of that party defend that person and the members of the other party attack, which I think is a blatant failure on their part. I’ve seen this happen not just in this committee, but also in other committees like the Public Accounts Committee for instance.”

He said that since the Speaker chairs the Standards Committee, many issues are being thrown at the Speaker for a decision to be taken as he has the deciding vote and since the Speaker is appointed by one side of the House, “the speaker comes with a certain handicap. Any decision he takes will be viewed as a political decision”.

But Hyzler doesn’t believe the Standards Committee’s actions, or some of the decisions it has taken, such as Rosianne Cutajar’s “reprimand” or the decision to find no breach against Carmelo Abela over advertising, have weakened the Office of the Standards Commissioner.

“Ironically, I think it’s quite the opposite. It has strengthened the Office. When the committee acts politically, its conclusion was dismissed as irrelevant and my opinion stood as the studied opinion.”

“The committee has all the powers the Standards Commissioner has – they could ask for further investigation, they could call in witnesses, they could challenge, but on occasion they didn’t do anything of the sort and would just shout at each other. I’m not here to tell them what to do but, obviously, once they do that I can comment on it like everybody else can.”

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has made a number of recommendations for Malta, in a joint project with the Office of the Standards Commissioner as well as the European Commission.

One of the OECD’s recommendations was for the introduction of lay people into the committee and for it to be chaired by a retired judge rather than the Speaker.

“We agree entirely with most of the OECD’s recommendations, and on others we are lukewarm. As regards the composition of the committee there are different ways to deal with it and I’m not saying that this is the only way. The OECD has essentially said there is a problem and it is saying that this option is one possible way of solving it. The introduction of lay members is something that can be debated. It could help, and it works in the United Kingdom. Obviously, in our polarised environment, it is very difficult to find people who are unpolitical.”

There are a number of other recommendations that were made, such as ones to deal with lobbying, revised codes of ethics which include rules on gifts, benefits and hospitality and rules on revolving doors. He’s hopeful that there will be a continuation of these reports and that they will not just be left on the shelf and be implemented.

He said that he has not had any formal reaction from government on any of the OECD recommendations.

“It will be extremely disappointing if there isn’t a continuation. The public expects a continuation. In addition, this Office is quoted in international reports, from GRECO to the Venice Commission. So it has gained a lot of international respect. We are now part of a network that we set up jointly with similar offices in a number of other European Union countries. I’d hate to think what it would be like if we were to go from very active promoters of an organisation to being absent. But I don’t think it will be the case.”

Standing by his reports

Turning to the reports and opinions about complaints against MPs he has given over his term as Commissioner, he stressed that he stands by every single one of them.

“There has not been one single opinion I’ve written that, in retrospect, I think could have been concluded differently.”

“If there’s something I’m proud of, it’s that the argumentation within the reports was never criticised. Some people might have said: ‘but you used to do this when you were a politician’. And the obvious answer is ‘sure, even if that were the case, and I’m not saying it was, you surely didn’t appoint me to preserve all the bad practices of the past‘. The world has evolved and practices that could have been considered acceptable in the past may not be acceptable today. The electorate today expects more of its MPs than it did in the past. My Office stands for better standards.”

Full-time MPs

Asked about the idea of full-time MPs, Hyzler said that his office had issued recommendations on this issue in its report on the employment of government backbenchers with the State. He indicated that one of the reasons for this practice may be because MPs aren’t paid well enough. “We shouldn’t try to solve this problem by implementing a practice that is, at best, irregular. Personally I think it’s beyond the irregular and is anti-constitutional, but that’s beside the point,” he said on government’s employment of backbenchers.

“Probably one of the reasons that government employs its own backbenchers is to provide them with additional income. By doing so Opposition MPs are placed at a disadvantage. So let’s acknowledge that there is a problem here. To be fair, I think everybody would say that €20,000 a year for a Member of Parliament is not fair compensation for the work they do. The workload of MPs today is much heavier than it used to be. Today, with the work in committees, the number of laws, with the sophistication of legislation, you require more expertise. MPs do not have enough time on their hands to do their job properly and they also don’t have assistants to help out.”

Backbenchers in Opposition have absolutely no support, he said. “Government backbenchers can, to a certain extent, rely on support from the ministers, although that is not always the case. When we speak about compensation for backbenchers, we should be talking about compensation in monetary terms and also in terms of support.”

“I made the argument that, whereas it is important to have backbenchers who are full-timers, I can understand that given the limited pool of people ready to go into politics, so as not to limit it further, we should offer people the option of choosing to be full- or part-time.”

He said that MPs should be compensated adequately. “I’m not saying they don’t fulfil their role properly today, but we must acknowledge that there are very serious limitations. People have to earn a decent living. We are speaking about people who are running the country, so we expect them to be of a certain level. If you expect people of that level to dedicate themselves to political life, then you simply can’t pay peanuts.”

Respect for the Office

Asked whether he feels his Office is respected by ministers and MPs, or if there are a few who do not respect it, he said that MPs have been made aware of the consequences of ethical breaches.

“I commend government and the Opposition for having had the courage to set up this Office. As the Maltese saying goes, nobody wants the police outside his door. Everyone is very happy to have the police outside someone else’s door. In the case of this Office, they voted unanimously to create this kind of institution to regulate their behaviour. So one logically assumes that once they voted for it, it’s what they wanted and know what to expect. I’m sure they did not expect to have a commissioner who would reject every single complaint that comes in. I believe they genuinely felt that it was high time to have a body that could regulate behaviour. We must also keep in mind the historical context, where we are emerging from a period of reputational darkness. So this is one way of addressing the reputational damage that was caused.”

Political advertising

The Commissioner had issued advertising guidelines back in 2021, and he said that these were largely observed.

“Government had said it is going to abide by them and it did. However, there was one publication that was issued just before the 2022 election, which marked the second anniversary of Robert Abela’s appointment that, in my opinion, broke those rules. We’re talking about a breach of the rule that public funds should not be used for personal or partisan gain. In the one case where a minister was found to have breached this rule, the defence was that he didn’t have guidelines. So I took the initiative to issue guidelines. By and large they were respected with one exception. The report is pending before the committee.”

Hyzler will soon be stepping down from his role as Commissioner when he heads off to take up his new role in the European Court of Auditors. The next Standards Commissioner would need to be appointed through a two-thirds majority Parliamentary vote.

However recently, a similar appointment saw issues. The term of Ombudsman Anthony Mifsud ended last year, however, no new Ombudsman has yet been appointed and Mifsud continued on in a temporary capacity. PN Leader Bernard Grech had complained of lack of consultation with the Opposition on this issue back in July.

In Hyzler’s case however, given that he will be resigning to take up a new post, someone will need to be appointed.

“In the Ombudsman’s case there was no pressure to hurry, because there is an incumbent and the law provides for continuity,” he said, but this has brought to the fore a shortcoming of the system of appointments by a two-thirds majority.

In the case of the Commissioner for Standards, he said that if there is no replacement when he resigns, then the Office will continue to function in a limited manner but will not have the power to issue reports, as in his opinion, reports must be issued by a Commissioner.

Asked whether there is a real possibility of this happening, he said that if there is no agreement on a replacement, “then it could happen, yes”.

He added, however, that he has the government’s assurance that it will make every effort for a replacement as soon as he leaves.

He appealed to both the government and the Opposition to enter discussions with an open mind. “When it comes to appointments by a two-thirds majority, both sides have to be prepared to compromise. If both sides head into a discussion each with different names in mind and they both stick to those two names, it’s not going to happen. There has to be an element of compromise.”

He then expressed an opinion that has hitherto never been put forward. He floated the idea that the law should be amended to include the role of deputy Commissioner, to be also appointed by a two-thirds majority. The deputy Commissioner would work alongside the Commissioner and step in as temporary Commissioner if the Commissioner dies in Office, resigns or is otherwise unable to carry out his functions. “This is not an entirely novel concept and we have seen it work well in the case of the Auditor General. Adding a deputy Commissioner would actually facilitate negotiations leading up to the appointment of Commissioner.”

Advice for the next Commissioner

Asked if he has anyone in mind who would be ideal as his replacement, Hyzler said that a number of competent individuals do come to mind, but would not discuss them publicly.

As for any advice he has for the next person who takes the job, he kept it simple. “Just be your own person, don’t succumb to pressure.”

“By pressure I don’t mean direct pressure. Since my appointment I haven’t met a single instance of attempted pressure of any sort. Nobody has ever told me to go easy on something or to ignore something, nor have I received any threats. But there’s always indirect pressure that comes from what is in the media. But you have to use your judgement in the most independent and impartial way possible, sometimes also going against your own feelings about a subject. You have to take decisions on the basis of the evidence and to interpret the rules by applying common sense and, why not, by pushing the boundaries in the interest of better standards.”

“If there’s something I’m proud of, it’s that the argumentation within the reports was never criticised. Some people might have said: ‘but you used to do this when you were a politician’”

Reasons for nomination

In the past there were concerns that government chose to push Hyzler towards the European Court of Auditors’ role to get him out of the way because he has been so effective as a Standards Commissioner.

Asked about this, he said: “I know that this opinion has been expressed, it has done the rounds. But I don’t think it’s the case. I think the reason why I was nominated was because government needed to appoint someone in a European Union institution who could gain support across the board. The results speak for themselves. The only party that did not support my nomination in the EU Parliament plenary was the extreme right, otherwise I received the support of the greens, socialists, the EPP and all the other parties. I’m saying this because government’s strategy worked. I was told beforehand that this is the reason it’s being done.”

“We have to wait and see the approach and the outcome of negotiations between the parties on my replacement to judge whether this allegation has merit. If there is a replacement and there is a seamless transition, then obviously all of these allegations will be put to rest. Time will tell.”

Front Page

en-mt

2022-08-14T07:00:00.0000000Z

2022-08-14T07:00:00.0000000Z

https://maltaindependent.pressreader.com/article/281513639935057

Malta Independent