What's changing in Malta's ethics rules for MPs and ministers

Changes to parliamentary ethics rules are on the horizon—although they’ve been on the horizon for a while.

In January this year Prime Minister Robert Abela made it clear that he wanted to change the code of ethics so that ministers and MPs are subject to the same asset declaration system. At this point, ministers had already stopped submitting asset declarations to Cabinet, instead only subjecting themselves to the asset declarations expected as MPs

READ ALSO | 'Put your mind at ease,' Abela says as ethics reform omits partners' declarations

Now, the proposals have been presented to a parliamentary committee. Here is a breakdown of what is and isn’t changing in the existing legal framework.

The background

Malta's Standards in Public Life Act sets out two separate codes of ethics: one for members of parliament, contained in the First Schedule, and one for ministers and parliamentary secretaries, contained in the Second Schedule. The Standards Commissioner oversees compliance with both.

The proposed amendments, drawn up by the Justice Ministry on the recommendation of parliament's permanent committee on standards in public life, would replace the MPs' code in its entirety and make one targeted but significant change to the ministers' code. The changes require an affirmative resolution of the House before they come into force.

A more detailed code for MPs

The current MPs' code is a relatively brief document. It sets out basic obligations around conduct, bans additional payment for parliamentary work, and requires members to declare certain assets annually in a register kept by the Speaker.

The new code is considerably more detailed. It explicitly extends the ethics rules beyond the chamber itself to cover members' conduct in public life generally, including political events and constituency work. Two new provisions require members to show respect to the Speaker and fellow MPs, and to uphold a set of named values in their work: loyalty, objectivity, honesty, accountability, transparency, and confidentiality. These somewhat mirrors what are known internationally as the Nolan principles, a framework for public life ethics developed in the UK in the 1990s that has become a widely adopted benchmark.

Expanded asset declarations

The asset declaration requirements are being somewhat strengthened. Under the current code, MPs must declare their occupation, immovable property, shares and investments, and directorships. The new code adds several categories that are not currently required: income from the previous year, virtual currencies, outstanding loans owed by the member, and intangible assets such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights.

The addition of income is the biggest transparency win. To date, MPs have no obligation to declare the amount of money they made in their profession in the previous year. This is one of the most commonly recommended elements in international transparency frameworks.

Newly appointed members will be required to file a declaration within one month of taking their seat, ensuring they are brought into line with colleagues from the outset rather than waiting until the following March.

Conflicts of interest get their own rules

There is also a new dedicated article on conflicts of interest. The current code for MPs has no explicit provision on this beyond a general obligation to avoid improper influence. The new code defines conflict of interest, sets out the circumstances of such a conflict, and makes clear that the obligation applies not just to votes but to all parliamentary work, including committee proceedings and parliamentary questions.

Members would be required to register a range of interests, including membership of voluntary organisations, professional connections to lobbying interests, and trips abroad paid for by parties with an interest in legislation before the House. Any professional interest connected to legislation before the House would also need to be declared on the floor at the earliest opportunity before a vote on the second reading of the relevant bill.

The spousal assets question

One of the more contentious changes is the removal of the requirement to declare the assets of spouses and minor children. Under the current code, members whose marriage is government by community of assets must declare their spouse’s immovable property and their minor children’s assets alongside their own. The government has dropped this requirement, arguing that it creates a double standard: a member married under community of assets must declare a spouse’s property, while a member who has signed a separation of assets agreement does not.

The argument for removing it is coherent but it runs against the grain of international standards, which generally recommend that asset declarations extend to family members precisely because undeclared family wealth is a well-documented route for obscuring conflicts of interest.

What changes for ministers

Only a single sub-article is being changed in the ministers’ code, but it is the most significant change in the entire package.

Under the current Second Schedule, ministers are required on appointment to provide the Cabinet Secretary with a full statement of their assets and interests, and to update it annually. Any actual or perceived conflict of interest must also be flagged to the Cabinet Secretary. This is a parallel system that works alongside the parliamentary register.

The new version strips the asset and interest declaration obligation out of the ministers' code entirely, leaving only the requirement to flag conflicts of interest to the Cabinet Secretary. The government's argument is that ministers are also MPs, and are therefore already subject to the parliamentary asset register, which will be more detailed once these amendments pass.

Before ministers stopped declaring their assets with the Cabinet Secretary, ministers declared their income only in the ministerial declarations. It is also only in the ministerial declaration that they put forward information on financial investments and bank accounts held by their spouses. This information is not expected of MPs.

In this new system, ministers will declare their income in their parliamentary declaration like the rest of their peers. However, all information on investments and bank accounts held by their spouses will not be up for public scrutiny.

Does this meet international standards?

The expansion of the MPs' code by adding income declarations, closing the gap on conflicts of interest beyond votes, and codifying the Nolan principles brings Malta closer to what bodies like GRECO and the OECD recommend. The new conflict of interest provisions in particular also fill gaps that have previously been flagged in external evaluations.

The removal of spousal asset declarations moves in the opposite direction. And the consolidation of ministerial declarations into the parliamentary system, while administratively tidier, reduces the number of points at which a member's financial interests are formally checked.