Peter Fenech
The controversy surrounding the Prime Minister’s authorisation to permit one of his ministers to disregard a central part of the Code of Ethics for Ministers raises a number of issues which go far beyond the political mileage that one may tend to take in the short term.
The first clarification required concerns the Code of Ethics per se. This is not a set of rules or even less a set of laws, but a code; a self-imposed code drafted and published back in the mid-nineties that has served five governments of different political ideologies, and served them relatively well. The issue that arose in the past and also over the past few weeks since this new case came to light is the question of the enforceability of this Code of Ethics.
With all due respect, I believe that those who harp on the fact that the code is not enforceable, those who have blogged relentlessly with political blindness as their only creed, have clearly missed the point and shown an element of superficiality on their understanding and treatment of this issue which does them no good.
The issue surrounding the Code of Ethics for Ministers does not concern enforceability; it concerns the high moral ground we expect our most important politicians to occupy. It is not a question of them not doing something wrong because of the enforcement and enforceability of the Code of Ethics that looms over their heads; it is the moral threshold the general public expects those in public office not to cross.
The issue also raises thoughts about the message which such derogation transmits further down the chain of responsibility.
It is elementary that the Code of Ethics has a purposely inbuilt red line, a red line the public may legitimately harp on and be correct in expecting the people bound by such code, including the person leading them, not to cross.
If the junior minister in question is now permitted to perform part-time work, albeit during unconventional hours, why are other ministers, other doctors and many other people employed with the civil service prohibited from performing other work during the time when they are expected to honour their main work responsibilities?
Another thought that came to mind while contemplating this decision is the question of working hours. We now have a situation where a junior minister is doing part-time work on Sundays; presumably the decision was taken on the idea that Sunday is not part of one’s working week. This in itself leads me to the conclusion (with which I wholeheartedly disagree) that we have now capped the working week of our politicians – they do not work on Sundays and they are free to do what they like. I will refrain from answering the next question which automatically comes to mind, that is whether they expect to get paid on an overtime rate when they work on Sundays, and move on to my next concern.
The practice of members of Cabinet continuing to see patients surfaces in every legislature, but this time round there seem to have been many members of Cabinet who have continued this practice to the detriment of the Code of Ethics. This therefore raises the question of whether they are missing the point, whether they are labouring in an aura of arrogance or whether their professions are now truly in the doldrums because there are no competent professionals in their field to replace them.
That so many members of Cabinet request this go-ahead makes me wonder what the root and the cause of it all is. I have no doubt that professionals find it difficult to switch professions from one day to another and to abandon patients and clients they have served for years. This applies to every field and profession and not only to the medical sector. But first and foremost, one must keep in mind that it was their conscious choice to participate in elections and go to the forefront of public life.
This takes me to my final point – the question of monetary compensation for such services. There is no doubt in my mind that some of these politicians are getting paid for the professional services they render. This is wrong. It will transmit the wrong message to those paying for the professional services given; there will be no distinction in the mind of the person paying other than that he/she paid the minister who administered the service. If the focus is on the patient, then why charge the patient for such service? Why not perform the professional service free of charge and do away with all the criticism and the fiscal obligations that payment brings with it?
The issue of payment brings to mind the political controversy that surrounded the former government regarding the increase which the then ministers received of €500. While understanding the political mileage from dismembering the decision and criticising the political faux pas that had been committed, clearly the criticism was short-sighted and, in terms of responsibilities, not justified. The new government and its members are now realising in their own hard way and in silence that the amount of the proposed increase was realistic and more than justified. How can a good politician be expected to reduce his income two-fold if not more?
Little convinces me that this surge in addressing one’s private practice had nothing to do with money; to my mind, it constitutes an indirect admission that the ministers deserved a better salary, a salary which would enable politicians and their families to live decently. Have some of this newspaper’s readers come to the same conclusion?
Giving ministers permission to carry out private practice on a part-time basis is not a solution; it is a wrong political judgement that will come back to haunt this government.