Speaker of the House of Representatives Anglu Farrugia spoke on the importance of enforcing codes of ethics, parliamentary privilege and the challenges a small parliament faces, among other issues, during a two-day Commonwealth Speakers’ Conference held in Wellington, New Zealand earlier this week.
On parliamentary privilege, Dr Farrugia emphasised the fact that MPs should strike a balance between their right to speak freely without the risk of having to face subsequent legal action and the responsibility they carry through the use of such a privilege. Despite stating that it should stay, Dr Farrugia said he would push for citizens who feel aggrieved by MPs as a result of this privilege to be able to seek redress.
This newspaper is informed that Dr Farrugia’s views on this subject enjoyed the support of all the Speakers present for the conference.
As matters stand, members of the public who feel aggrieved by MPs cannot file a court case against a parliamentarian.
“Although hailing from parliaments with widely varying constitutional arrangements, we all share the Westminster traditions and practices, and undoubtedly the area of parliamentary privilege is no exception,” he said.
“I would like to recall the origin of the privileges enjoyed by parliaments – the UK Bill of Rights of 1689 – which essentially freed Speakers from repercussions from the Crown and freed them from being ‘impeached or questioned’ by the Courts in connection with any proceeding before the House.
“Although what we understand by parliamentary privilege, or its limits, has evolved over the years, the need for Parliaments to be able to function independently from the rest of the administration has remained unchanged.
“This separation of powers can only be true and effective if the Members can be free to speak without fear or favour before the House and thus without the fear or risk of facing prosecution,” he added.
Dr Farrugia said that whenever the subject of the work of Members of Parliament arises, there is the tendency for parliamentary privilege to be attacked, specifically that of speaking freely without the fear of being sued.
“I believe that this raises a controversy for two reasons: people feel threatened by the fact that they cannot seek redress for anything said about them before the House, whereas they have that right for the same words spoken anywhere else; and the term ‘privilege’ is often interpreted as meaning Members of Parliament enjoy benefits not ordinarily available to the rest of the citizens, effectively placing them above the law.
“Interestingly, in Malta calls to remove parliamentary privilege have even been made by sitting members themselves.
“However, bearing in mind the reasons why it was instituted in the first place, I suggest a more cautious approach to the argument.
“Whereas fully concurring with the opinion that such privilege should remain, I would add that this requires prudence and caution by the Members in their statements before the House, thereby balancing this right with the appropriate responsibility.
“One of my first visits abroad after being elected Speaker of the Maltese Parliament on 6 April last year was to the Parliament of New South Wales.
“From talks I had with my counterpart, Hon. Shelley Hancock, I was very eager to learn about the Citizen’s Right of Reply Procedure introduced by this Parliament in 1996, specifically to address this concern and to enable citizens who feel aggrieved to seek redress.
“As a Speaker I feel it is my duty that citizens continue to hold elected MPs in the high regard they deserve and, as I have already publicly expressed, I will push this idea in the Maltese Parliament, and hope that others among us will follow suit,” he said.
Dr Farrugia also spoke on the high standards and transparency those elected to parliament must exercise, the enforcement of codes of ethics and the publication of finances, referring to public finances and ministers’ declarations of assets.