It has been a while since stopped wondering why some people are so negative about all the good results attained by this government. There were times when I was led to believe that they could still come up with alternative measures or positively criticise. But alas! There were also instances when, upon taking office as Parliamentary Secretary for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Active Ageing, all we do in support of these two important sectors could not cause any partisan controversy. I can now weather any storm, as I have grown accustomed to such negativity.  In fact, I do not only rise above such destructive criticism, but also feel the urge to further keep informing about all that my collaborators and I plan and perform.  It is actually a timely opportunity for us to thank so many people who give us strong objective feedback about another important legislation in the pipeline to protect older people and the vulnerable.

I would not like to categorise within this scenario the furore caused by an odd misinterpretation of what I had told a journalist lately about the two innovative draft laws on further protective legislation for old people or persons with a disability. Although to err is human, misunderstandings can create mixed messages about two distinct issues that have been mixed up for whatever purpose in the media.  This necessitates the urge to explain further and clarify the misconceptions that arose after the recent mix up, which I sincerely believe was an innocent one.

What we have are two different draft bills; one already on the Attorney General’s table for his final touches relating to the enforcement of standards of care homes for older persons, and another still in its initial stages and which still needs to be formulated and eventually put for public consultation, prior to moving further, relating to the protection of older and vulnerable persons. Let me set things straight from the outset: there are no u-turns or beating about the bush in all that I have stated recently. I cannot be blamed for being misquoted, even innocently or inadvertently, although I know it can lead to misinformation and eventually harm public opinion. 

I would be blamed, however, if I shirked my duty to immediately put facts straight and put people’s minds at rest. It is unacceptable that anyone maliciously attempts to deviate or tarnish the basic truth that in all the legislative measures taken so far and in those that we are drafting, our main objective is the protection of the vulnerable within society, giving them all the dignity and rights they deserve.  

We are currently discussing a potential law to protect vulnerable people and we are exploring various models in these talks.  Various experts within the elderly care sector and disability are already involved in these discussions to establish a suitable definition and clear benchmarks for what constitutes ‘abuse and neglect’.  The discussions are also focusing on the idea that the state would essentially be able to care for these people and administer – under already-established public bodies’ guidance and surveillance – their assets while they are still alive.  Most definitely, the State would not intervene in issues of inheritance among children or immediate relatives or with regard to the bequeathing of estates and the manner thereof by any testator.

The sole purpose of such a bill will aim to step into social cases, where the persons in question need long-term care and are totally abandoned by their immediate families. It will only be in such cases that the State will intervene, and it will be most irresponsible for any government to abandon these people to any potential abuse and neglect while still alive, albeit physically weak. All decisions relating to the well-being of the person will also be taken by the State, since we are currently faced with situations of blatant social cases following abandonment and there is no legislation to cater for such instances. People involved in the sector are therefore operating in a vacuum with no legal set-up or protection whatsoever.

We are therefore determined to avoid instances when the vulnerable reach the extent of considering themselves helpless, with all the consequences we sometimes hear and watch on the news, and which we all abhor, condone and condemn. Although this will be a bold step forward in their defence, we are not re-inventing the wheel.  As a matter of fact, such instances already existed under the Guardianship-related articles and under other sections of our Civil Code.  In line with all fundamental principles of law, we will be transposing existing and long-established protective rules into specific legislation that concerns vulnerable persons.

With this in mind, we are looking into possible amendments to the Civil Code, and specifically to the existing article about those who are unworthy of inheriting, including cases of abuse and abandonment.  At the outset, we are exploring the possibility of establishing three major principles.

The first we are considering is the creation of a legal structure through which the State will be required to intervene to protect and preclude such persons from dangers of vulnerability.  In this and in all three instances, everything will be under strict scrutiny.

A second legal principle that we are looking into is in instances of social cases of vulnerability and abandonment, whereby persons who cannot take care of themselves are appointed a curator or guardian to help them better administer their assets – according to existing obligations – and in any case, be accountable for such administration.  

The third consideration deals with the existing duty for children to look after their parents and their needs, as already indicated in our Civil Code.  As things stand, the law imposes such obligations but requires the parents or persons with a disability to resort to court action for their enforcement.  We are exploring methods to make it easier for them to do so and simplify procedures.

This is our frame of mind, leaving no room for unwarranted undertones or populist misinterpretations intended to create false alarms.  Safeguarding people’s rights to enjoy their full dignity until the very end should be the foremost call of duty to any sane mind within the political spectrum.  As much as we strive to loyally commit ourselves to that call, we do not expect to be misinterpreted by those who neglected their duties for years on end. 

I have already reiterated this in the many public functions I attended during the past week. It is no harm, however, to press further with correct information for the benefit of those who find it hard to distinguish between facts and gossip. It is one thing to comment on an already published bill and quite another thing to speculate. However, speculations and misconceptions apart, and whatever was said both in favour and against, it is a very positive thing that abuse and abandonment of older and vulnerable persons was so debated during these last days. I must say that despite the comments arising out of lack of information, as a generic topic it was very well-received and honest and well-intended people do want legislation to protect older and vulnerable persons.

And lest anyone foments further misinterpretations to the already blown-up misconceptions, let me pre-empt them: this is nothing more than stating facts, while further explaining our intentions, and – why not? – determination to legislate and act in favour of the most vulnerable within our society. 

Dr Caruana is the Parliamentary Secretary for the Rights of People with Disability and Active Ageing