The Speaker used his Sette Giugno speech this year to speak about the need for several changes to the way Parliament works.

A parliamentary procedure that provides citizens with a means of redress when they feel that a Member of Parliament has abused of their parliamentary privilege by making incorrect or false statements about them in Parliament needs to be established, Speaker Anglu Farrugia said in his Sette Giugno speech.

"Presently, individuals in such situations have no recourse, even if they suffer adverse consequences as a result of statements made about them in the parliamentary Chamber or the committees. It is essential to recognize that these consequences may adversely affect their interests in ongoing court proceedings in which they are involved. I believe the time has come for us to explore models from various countries, especially those within the Commonwealth, and adopt the most suitable approach for our parliament."

This point is only fair: just because one is elected to Parliament, then it does not give them to right to say what they like about who they like within Parliament’s chambers and be protected – irrelevant of whether they are speaking the truth.

Farrugia recalled another proposal, concerning parliamentary work relating to witnesses appearing before the committees of Parliament.

"It is worth investigating the possibility of granting privileged status to evidence given before these committees, thereby preventing their use in a court of law or before any other judicial authority," he said, adding that he understood that the implementation of such a proposal would require political commitment, an in-depth discussion on its legal implications and amendments to Maltese legislation.

Recently we have seen a number of times where witnesses use the fact that they are under investigation in order to avoid answering questions posed to them in a parliamentary commentary. Former OPM chief of staff Keith Schembri was one such example.

However, this proposal should not be accepted. Parliamentary committees do not hold any power to punish in the case of wrongdoing. It would be completely unacceptable to have a situation where testimony given in a Parliamentary committee would be unable to be used in court.

During the speech, Farrugia also mentioned full-time Members of Parliament. "I still hold the view that in order to attract more individuals, both women and men, to engage in political life, while not hindering those already established in their professions who wish to contribute to society through politics, we should introduce a system that allows elected candidates to choose whether they wish to serve their country as full-time or part-time Members of Parliament."

This is something of a no-brainer, really.  Parliament is meant to attract the country’s brightest minds which can contribute the most to the country, but the current system is not conducive to attracting those minds.

Having a model where an MP can choose to be a full-timer, with a salary that befits that of an MP, would surely strengthen the Parliament and the quality of work that comes out of the House, and would definitely go a long way in attracting more people to give their contribution to politics.

It is probably time that a wide-reaching discussion, perhaps in the form of a national conference if need be, on what we want our Parliament to look like and how we want it to function is held, so that – if required – certain procedures are elements are updated in order to reflect the challenges and work required today.