Since the allegations that Nationalist Party deputy leader Mario de Marco was embroiled in a conflict of interest between his position in the party and his private work as a lawyer arose, the debate over whether being a Member of Parliament should be turned into a full-time occupation has once again become a national talking point.

Without going into the already belaboured details and merits of the case in question, what should be said is that the situation that Dr de Marco found himself entangled in is by no means a singular one.

Nor is it a situation unique to the PN. In fact, there are at least dozens of similar conflicts of interests among MPs from both sides of the House of Representatives that could rear their ugly heads at any given time, given the sheer number of MPs whose full time jobs are in the legal or corporate spheres.

In a nutshell, Dr de Marco’s case concerns the fact that he had been serving as legal counsel to the db Group for some time before the government struck a deal with the group for the sale of prime site land at St George’s Bay for what has become a contentious price, and before the Opposition, of which he is a member, had taken exception to the price tag.

The fact of the matter is that both sides of the House are populated by heavy contingents of lawyers, many of whom are among the leaders in their respective areas of practice. And while Parliament remains a part-time occupation, no lawyer-MP can really be begrudged for taking on the country’s biggest businesses, at least those that are free of political controversy, as clients.

Everyone, after all, is entitled to earn a living to the best of their ability. The problem arises, as it did in the case of Dr de Marco, when earning a living conflicts with one’s political duties.  And, as said, this could happen on any given day and to any MP who holds briefs with business of any kind, at which point an MP is forced to make a choice between business and politics.

This presents something of a dilemma and such conundrums crop up perhaps more often than one may think. Some make it to the public eye and some such fires are stamped out by the respective parties before that happens.

But the only real, sure fire solution to preventing such conflicts of interest is to create a full-time Parliament composed of full-time parliamentarians.

Such a move has been on the cards for a long time now but both parties in Parliament appear to be rather reticent to go down that route, most likely for fear of losing some of their best people – the doctors and lawyers and other professionals who, when push comes to shove may very well choose their original, and better paid, vocation over their political calling.

In its recent proposals for good governance, the Opposition came up with the proposal of giving MPs the option of choosing whether to be full-time or part-time MPs.

And the party in government had also evidently given the issue some thought, right at the beginning of the legislature.

A report commissioned by the government back in April 2013 and drawn up and presented by the Ombudsman, the Auditor General and the Electoral Commissioner in December of that same year, had recommended the creation of a full-time Parliament, but it had also presented the option for MPs to choose between being full- or part-time parliamentarians.

The report recommended that MPs’ salaries would almost triple from the current €20,000 a year to a full-time annual salary of €59,000, which would be halved if the proposal is not accepted and they remain part-time parliamentarians.

The report suggested that while a good salary should not be the motivation behind anyone’s desire to enter politics, those who go down this path usually sacrifice a great deal. Malta cannot afford to have underpaid politicians in view of the fact that many of them actually sacrifice their personal lives to enter politics. A decent salary, the report said, would also discourage the temptation of corruption.

One should not, however, expect any drastic moves along such lines in the immediate future as the report had made it quite clear that the present government had committed that no such action would be taken during the current legislature. 

But that still leaves some time to start the ball rolling and for the country and its politicians to do some soul searching about whether the status quo part-time Parliament should be maintained, or if the country should go for a compulsory full-time Parliament, or whether MPs should be offered a choice between the two.