I have read the articles written by Daphne as well as the reply issued by the Chamber of Advocates.

Indeed this debate has been going on for many years now… where to place the dividing line between the right to private practice and the obligations of an elected MP, an issue that seems to bedevil more lawyer, and today, architect MPs then those in other professions.

Both schools of thought have valid arguments in favour of and against the proposition that MPs should or should not refrain from taking on briefs from clients that might even give the perception of a conflict of interest between their professional interests and their integrity as MPs – at the end of the day it is a question of moral rectitude and of values cherished by the person concerned – and whether or not he looks upon being an MP as a way to enhance his private profession!

The source of the problem is the fact that until now our MPs have to do private work as well as being MPs… a situation that has become an anachronism in 21st century Malta, especially now with our country being a member of the European Union. Though in theory many MPs in other member States do have a right to take on private work, very few ever do; being an MP is regarded as a full time job because there is simply no time to practise any other profession.

I find it very hard to believe that our Parliament, with the few hours it meets per week, whether in plenary or in Committee, manages to vet and review the thousand of pages of directives, suggestion for directives and all other material coming from the European institutions each and every day.

And, unlike other Parliaments, there is no scrutiny of what our Ministers say and do in Council meetings as we have opted for the easy method of listening to what Ministers have done rather then giving them a mandate on what they should do in these meetings.

I am aware that the question is principally one of costs, but we cannot go on having part-time MPs in a part-time Parliament. An effective Parliament, like a real democracy, has a cost element attached to it. It is time that MPs look at their position as a full time job and this can only happen if they are paid properly for their time. Fewer MPs working full time also means that our country will do without many who see this position as being an extension of their profession, to be attended to only when all their clients have left their private office. It will also mean that our MPs will do their study and research properly and thus assure their constituents that their interests are being taken care of full time.

To this must be added the need to have proper Parliamentary staff, trained for this job and able to support the Speaker and MPs in their daily work. The number of full time staff in our Parliament is a shadow of that in other Parliaments, even in small countries such as ours.

The day might also come when our MPs no longer look at membership in the House as a position for life, but look at it as a step in their professional career, giving, for some years, the best to their country and then return to their chosen profession after their time in Parliament, becoming again private citizens with a right to engage in whatever other activity they wish to follow.

A full time MP will not have to grapple with problems of conflict of interest between his private profession and his duties as an MP.

M. Cassar