Whoever, like me, is in the habit of regularly following parliamentary proceedings will have become familiar with the style, language and vocabulary used by our Members of Parliament who, lest we forget, represent each and every one of us in the House of Representatives. I have witnessed several incidents in our Parliament during which the language, vocabulary and demeanour of our representatives have been anything... well, but “honourable”.

To start with, I find it annoying when certain members, in the thick of a discussion on a very important topic, are nonchalantly seen reading  newspapers, magazines, letters or other material (except when connected with the issue under discussion),  or seen continually passing between the Chair and the Member who is speaking, not to mention the gobbling of a quick snack.

The purpose of using "honourable" is to maintain the dignity of the House and its members, to make criticism and comment less direct as well as showing respect to the Chair or the Speaker. Members do, however, sometimes inadvertently omit "honourable": this often goes unchallenged and is hardly corrected. The occupant of the Chair should traditionally be addressed as "Sir" when a man, "Madam" if a woman. However, I have interchangeably heard the Chair being addressed as Mr President, Mr Speaker or Madam Speaker.

People outside Parliament often think that the use of "honourable" in the House translates into the style of address to be used when writing to members. It should be stressed that this is not the case. A member is simply addressed as "Ab MP" or "Ms (Mrs) Ab MP", not "the Hon Ab MP".

Each sitting of the House begins with prayers, with members standing for prayers. Although information on the origin of daily prayers is sketchy, we in Malta have followed the tradition observed in the British Parliamentary system, wherein it is believed that the practice of having such prayers started as far back as 1558 and was a settled practice by 1567.

I wonder why to date we still refer to the Strangers’ Gallery. I suggest that in modern times visitors to the House should no longer be referred to as strangers but as members of the public. I think that Public Gallery is more appropriate.

I am always fascinated by the manner in which members are called to speak. Members may speak only if called by the Chair. They are called by name and must sit down if the Speaker rises to his or her feet (for example, to call for order or to interrupt the debate). To “catch the Speaker's eye” members commonly rise or half-rise from their seats but if they are not called they have no redress. They may, of course, contact the Speaker or a member of his staff in advance to indicate their desire to be called during a particular debate. The Speaker is likely to give precedence to prior requests but no guarantee can be given if the subject is a popular one.

I have occasionally witnessed a cut-and-thrust style of debate where members listen to other members’ speeches and intervene in them in spontaneous reaction to opponents’ views. Whenever there was this style of debate the House became a rather noisy place with robustly expressed opinion, many interventions, expressions of approval or disapproval and, sometimes, of repartee and banter. I understand that members have the right when speaking, to be heard without unendurable background noise (deliberate or accidental) and the Chair will call for order if it appears there is an attempt to drown out a member or when a number of members are leaving the Chamber, or conversing loudly. The Speaker also has the right to inform a member who has failed to observe the courtesies of debate that he or she need not expect to get priority in being called to speak. But successive Speakers have taken care not to bridle the traditional vigour and forthrightness of the expression of opinion in the House, for the style of our Parliament has never thrived on excessive politeness and restraint.

Now for some unparliamentary language, which I have heard in Maltese and which I am freely translating into English here. Language and expressions used in Parliament must conform to a number of rules. Erskine May states "good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language". Objection has been taken both to individual words and to sentences and constructions – in the case of the former, to insulting, coarse or abusive language (particularly as applied to other members); and of the latter, to charges of lying or being drunk and misrepresentation of the words of another. Among the words to which Speakers have objected over the years has been hypocrite, criminal, liar, Pharisee, ruffian, coward, hooligan, rat, swine, stoolpigeon and traitor. The context in which a word is used is, of course, very important. Members sometimes use considerable ingenuity to circumvent these rules (as when, for instance, a particular member substituted the phrase "terminological inexactitude" for "lie") but they must be careful to obey the Speaker's directions, as a member who refuses to retract an offending expression may be named or required to withdraw from the House. In fact, there is a long list of terms you may not use in Parliament about another MP. The list is not carved in stone and it is quite often added to. The worst offending expression I have heard so far was "the hon. member has been returned by the refuse of a large constituency".

And to think that in 2014 government had written to Parliament’s House Business Committee seeking its opinion on a request by former MPs to retain their title of “honourable”! Perhaps they should be afforded such retention after all, but only if and when our Parliament functions as the repository of the sovereign will of the people, with the joint responsibility of both the government and the Opposition.

Dr Mark Said is an advocate