More than six months have passed since the Speaker of the House of Representatives made some interesting observations in his annual address to commemorate the 7 June 1919 riots, which opened the way for Malta to have its own Parliament, two years later, in 1921.

That day, the Speaker, Anglu Farrugia, made some important suggestions on which, until today, more than half a year later, there has been no official reaction by the two political parties represented in the House.

What is perhaps worse is that these suggestions were not new. They have been placed on the agenda for a number of years but, each time, they have been ignored. It is easy, therefore, to draw the conclusion that both the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party have no real interest in seeing their implementation.

One of the most important of these suggestions is about parliamentary privilege. For those who do not know, this privilege gives legal immunity to all MPs on whatever they say, or do, during parliamentary sittings. Legislators are granted protection against civil or criminal liability on statements or actions that take place in the House.

The idea, very common in countries where the Constitution is based on the Westminster model, is to allow MPs to speak freely without fear or retribution. While this concept may be crucial for matters related to the workings of the State, there have been instances when this privilege was abused, as MPs used this immunity to lash out at private persons who had no way by which they could defend themselves.

What the Speaker said

The below is, word for word, what the Speaker said on this matter in the English version of his speech as provided by the Department of Information.

“I am referring to the citizen's right of reply, a mechanism whereby citizens would have a right to reply to what has been stated in Parliament in their regard. I believe that the time has come to implement this parliamentary procedure. I reiterate that while it is essential that parliamentary privilege be maintained so that no Member is afraid of speaking the truth, it is equally important that no Member abuses such privilege and ends up harming persons, be they physical or juridical, who cannot reply and defend themselves in Parliament. To date, persons who feel that statements made in their regard by Members of Parliament while addressing the House or a Committee cannot take any remedial action, even if such statements cause suffering to these persons who could also be subject to proceedings in the courts.

“There are several models, particularly in the Commonwealth, that one might consider when adopting such a parliamentary procedure. An interesting example is the one adopted by the New Zealand Parliament, where it is the Speaker who considers and decides whether what has been said in Parliament by a Member under parliamentary privilege, is sufficiently serious to be capable of adversely affecting a citizen, in which case, without going into the merit of the remarks that gave rise to the complaint, allows for the clarification made by such a citizen to be included in the records of the House. In other Commonwealth models, the Speaker refers the complaints he receives to a parliamentary committee for its consideration and decision.

“The fact that this concept is not so common outside the Commonwealth should not deter us from introducing this parliamentary procedure which would provide a remedy to those citizens who may justifiably feel that the parliamentary privilege has been abused in their regard. This initiative would be similar to the one implemented a few years ago with the agreement of both sides of the House, when we introduced measures whereby citizens could petition Parliament directly without having to approach a Member of Parliament. Today, citizens know that that if their petition meets the established criteria, it will be considered by the Standing Committee on Petitions. Therefore, just as Parliament has taken steps forward in this regard, I believe that it is time to start looking at how to address this delicate but important issue of the citizen's right of reply.”

Not only right of reply

It should go further than what the Speaker has suggested.

First of all, parliamentary privilege should only be allowed on matters of national interest. When during a speech, in whatever part of the sitting, an MP digresses into mentioning people, who are not members of the House, on a personal level or in any way that damages their reputation, it should be the Speaker who immediately stops them.

If such damage has already been caused, or if the MP continues the diatribe, then a right of reply would be in order. Such a reply should then be read, in full, by the Speaker in between question time and the plenary session.

What the Speaker suggested is that it is the Speaker or a parliamentary committee that decides whether what was said and done warrants some form of action.

We beg to differ on this. Speakers, who are appointed by the government (sometimes with the approval of the opposition), tend to be gatekeepers on such matters. Parliamentary committees are also known to defend “their own”. One only has to look at how reports compiled by the Standards Commissioner to see how MPs protect their own corner. It is not ideal that Speakers or MPs should be the ones to decide on such matters.

It would be much better if some independent body is appointed to oversee the use and abuse of parliamentary privilege. Retired judges would be perfect for such a role, as they are independent of politics and parliament, and have the required legal background which enables them to decide whether complaints can been deemed as frivolous or serious. They should be the ones to decide whether a right of reply is in order.

But this right of reply should be the minimum recourse that a citizen is allowed. If what was said in Parliament is injurious and has no relevance in the national debate, then citizens – apart from having their right of reply read out in Parliament – should also have the right to take MPs to court.

Parliamentary privilege should be limited to whatever is important on a national level, not for MPs to attack private individuals.

Length of speeches, time of sittings

The Speaker touched on other matters in the Sette Giugno speech.

One of them was the length of time an MP is allowed to make an argument, with Farrugia indicating a maximum of 20 minutes.

This is another quote from his address.

“I have no doubt that Members can make their argument in 20 minutes or less. If perhaps more time is needed to reach an agreement on the necessary amendments to the Standing Orders, as has happened in previous legislatures, the House should agree on a procedure motion setting out the maximum speaking time in Parliament to 20 minutes. In this way I believe that the debating time of the House can be used more productively in the interest of the common good, as after all is expected of the representatives of the Maltese people.”

Twenty minutes is way too long. It should be much less.

Many times, MPs end up repeating themselves, or making arguments others have already made, or simply using up their allotted time without really contributing to the debate.

The maximum time allotted to each MP – and, remember, now we have 79, imagine if all of them were to be given 20 minutes on one particular law it would take them more than 26 hours, or 10 and a half sittings – should be five minutes, 10 if we want to be generous.

The Speaker also suggested a change in the time Parliament meets.

“Another matter that I believe needs revisiting is that of the time at which Parliament meets, where this would better accommodate the professional, family, personal and even academic exigencies of the larger number of Members of Parliament,” he said.

In recent years, we have moved from having sittings finishing at 9.30pm to ones that end at 7.30pm. This was a step forward.

Maybe the time has now come for sittings to be held in the morning. Given that, on many occasions, sittings are held with very few MPs present, such a schedule would fit with the MPs commitments without disrupting the flow of parliamentary work. If that would entail having full-time MPs, then it’s something that could be studied.

One other suggestion

While at it, there is one other suggestion that should be considered, and this is the introduction of the Prime Minister’s question time. The idea is to have the PM grilled by MPs on a regular basis, perhaps even once a week, as happens in the UK.

Such a proposal has been floated several times, but it has never materialised, maybe because sitting Prime Ministers are not too keen to face such a challenge. If they followed what Boris Johnson went through in weeks leading to his resignation, they were probably put off even more.

Having the PM questioned by MPs would certainly be another step forward towards greater transparency and greater accountability.

Robert Abela should think about it.

The way forward

As said in the introduction, more than six months have passed but we have not heard anything about what the Speaker suggested.

Another 7 Giugno event is fast approaching, and it’s probable that nothing would have been done. So we’re bound to hear the Speaker make his suggestions – these and maybe others – again.

Whether action will be taken is altogether another matter.