In Parliament on Wednesday, Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil made a series of statements regarding the Konrad Mizzi case.

He was later challenged to repeat the same allegations outside the House but so far, 24 hours later, he has declined to do so.

His deputy, Beppe Fenech Adami, was yesterday challenged to repeat the same allegations but again he refused to do so.

We thus have a dichotomy between what is said in the House and thus covered by parliamentary immunity and what is said outside and thus subject to libel and other laws.

This dichotomy has always existed but new developments have now changed the situation.

For by the fact that parliament in Malta is now directly streamed, and the concurrent fact that anyone may copy that stream and re-broadcast it on Facebook or any other social media means that the Dr Busuttil continues to be streamed and re-broadcast as much as anybody likes and there is nothing one can do about that.

There is thus no need for Dr Busuttil to repeat what he said in the House outside it once the same speech is being rebroadcast around the clock.

While that is fine when seen from the Opposition’s point of view, it may not be fine where the rights of those who are directly involved are considered.

The parliamentary immunity should never be a wall behind which one hides and from which one throws stones.

There is a very strong case to be made to retain parliamentary immunity since this represents a very strong historical tradition through which the Members are free to express themselves in the House, unfettered by laws and restrictions.

But theoretically at least what is uttered in Parliament should be as clear and as true as that which can be uttered outside the House. Parliamentary immunity, in other words, is there as a safeguard but not as an accomplice to saying what otherwise would not be allowed.

However, the main thing is to come to a newer balance now that the direct broadcasting of parliamentary sittings and the ease of copying the sittings, the speeches, the views on to the social media has become so easy to do.

We are not calling, by any means, for any new restrictions to be brought in but for a wider analysis of the consequences of the changeover to more direct TV screening of the House sittings.

Earlier on Wednesday, the House had another novelty: the presence of the Malta Philharmonic Orchestra in the House. For those who might have watched it, it was a very satisfying hour.

For in the House where words, many times in ager, prevail, it was music to the ears to hear music. Words are many times tempered by music. We augur this happens more often in the future. And that the words expressed in the House become more and more influenced by music that temper the words.