Speaker Anglu Farrugia has said that he has "no problem" with criticism levelled against him. He stated that ultimately, he is following the procedures - Parliament's Standing Orders - assigned to him, and he has even criticised them himself in order for them to get improved.
Farrugia was interviewed by The Malta Independent on Sunday as Parliament observes its summer recess before resuming in October.
One of the biggest criticisms posed against Farrugia is that he acts as a gatekeeper for the government. The criticism comes especially from the Nationalist Party, which did not endorse Farrugia's election as Speaker after the last general election in 2022.
But Farrugia doesn't feel that the criticism is warranted.
"It's not true," he says when asked about talk that he is a gatekeeper for the government. "My rulings are public and they are based on procedures, which we have to stick to - Parliament's Standing Orders. When they are silent, I then have to look at what the British position is. I'm tied to that," he says.
"It's interesting because it's the Opposition's perception... so when there are rulings in their favour do I become a Nationalist? I came from the Labour Party, but I'm not active and I haven't paid my membership since I resigned, so I'm absolutely not conditioned," Farrugia says.
Farrugia added that he's got "no problem" with criticism, and in fact he himself criticises the same Standing Orders so that they can be improved - like he did during his customary address on Sette Giugno.
"For example, the average citizen is not protected from what is said in Parliament. If somebody - be they from the government or the Opposition - abuses parliamentary privilege, the average citizen has no remedy against what is being said about them. I've spoken about having these abuses investigated; there should be parliamentary privilege but it cannot be abused," Farrugia explains.
But does it bother him that the Opposition doesn't appear to have faith in him as Speaker?
"It doesn't bother me that they speak against me. Today I've been in Parliament for almost 30 years... I've seen giants... Dom Mintoff, Eddie Fenech Adami... Everyone has the right to criticise. As for how genuine it is, I'll leave that for the people to decide," Farrugia says.
He goes a step further and points out that for some reason when it came to confirm his appointment, the Opposition did not request a division, which is a procedure where the votes on any given motion are counted out.
"I don't know why... I later got to know that there were quite a few who did not agree to vote against me... but that's another matter," he says. He adds though that he has a very good rapport with almost all of the Opposition MPs, including PN leader Bernard Grech, so the perception is not as bad as it is made out to be.
It's natural that there will be disagreements, he continues, but in certain terms, they are simply not correct.
One such matter was concerning a request by the Opposition for an urgent debate under the auspices of Standing Order 13. The PN had cited this Standing Order in order to file three separate requests on the now annulled hospitals' deal - but the Speaker had turned them down, resulting in a walkout by the Opposition MPs from Parliament.
"Imagine that you ask the Speaker for an urgent debate on a matter where people are going to be charged in court. As soon as I accept this, I am breaching the accused's constitutional rights - there are court sentences on this, even from Europe," he says
"If I explain this and they don't accept it, then I'm not the problem. The procedure has to be studied and there are rules to follow, including from the Constitutional Court - when it pronounces itself and Parliament contradicts it, then Parliament is breaching constitutional law," he says.
However, it could be argued that beyond the legal side of the matter, the people should have a right to hear answers from those in power on a topic which is of such national importance. The question lies in finding a balance between the legal rights of the accused and the public's right to answers.
"It's a very interesting and important question," Farrugia admits when it is posed to him. "Without a doubt there always has to be a way for a subject to be discussed," he says.
"The crux is here: how are you going to control a debate to ensure that a person's rights are not breached? The court said that it is not possible. So it's not a question of what I want," he says.
"If you don't have control of the debate - and you cannot have control really as once you mention someone, you've already breached their rights. How are you going to control that? The court itself says you cannot," he adds.
It's a matter of changing Parliament's Standing Orders - and that can be said about many other things related to Parliament's proceedings.
Standing Orders largely untouched since the 1960s
Parliament's Standing Orders are essentially the guidebook for how Parliament must be run. Enshrined in Maltese law, the Speaker is bound to run Parliament based on what these Standing Orders say, and when the Standing Orders are silent on an issue, he must refer to proceedings from the UK's House of Commons.
Farrugia says that the Standing Orders have remained largely untouched since the 1960s - and while he has been calling for changes, until both the government and the Opposition come together to make the changes there's only so much that he can do.
One example where changes were made was on the length of speeches in Parliament. Farrugia says that he could recall Dom Mintoff's famous seven or so hour speech in 1998 - the speech which preceded him ultimately voting down Alfred Sant's Labour government - and it was at his initiative that a limit of 30 minutes on speeches today has been imposed.
"Is that enough? For me it should be even shorter... I said as much on Sette Giugno. These things however are not up to me. The procedure itself needs to be revisited," he says.
Farrugia referred to his speech on Sette Giugno more than once throughout the interview: Sette Giugno is the only occasion that the Speaker of the House gives a speech, and Farrugia has used it time and time again to speak about what needs to change within Malta's Parliament.
Similarly, Farrugia speaks about parliamentary questions: "It is clear that the Speaker is bound by the Standing Orders as to how a question can be posed, but there is nothing on how the answer has to be given. The House of Commons has the same position. Is it good? No! I am saying that it shouldn't be like that, but if it's not fixed then just saying it won't change anything."
He says that this is a "serious" matter, and that it's unacceptable that there are some 1,000 PQs, which go unanswered every legislature.
Indeed, in the legislature between 2008 and 2013 there were 1,137 unanswered PQs. That number rose to 1,617 for the legislature between 2013 and 2017, before dipping to 961 between 2017 and 2022.
So far in this legislature, which is barely halfway through, there are 926 PQs which have not been answered.
"Can we keep on going like this? No, it has to be addressed - but for it to be addressed, the Standing Orders have to be addressed," he says. Farrugia continues that there is a procedure that can be followed in this regard if the government and Opposition agree, but adds that he cannot provide details on it yet as it is expanded upon in a ruling, which he will hand down when Parliament reconvenes after the summer recess.
Another area, which has long been discussed, is on whether MPs should be allowed to work full-time. As things stand, MPs receive an honoraria, but Parliamentarians, who are not part of Cabinet, are part-timers. The Venice Commission had recommended that Malta shifts to a full-time Parliament, while the Speaker himself had said in an interview with The Malta Independent on Sunday, almost five years ago, that MPs should be given the option of whether to work full- or part-time.
It's a belief that Farrugia still holds. Asked whether he was aware of any discussions that were held on the matter, he said that there were some talks and the government was meant to consult the Opposition. "If both of them do not sit down and put their heads together, it's pointless talking. When they had to decide on the quota to address the gender imbalance in Parliament, they did it," he points out.
There are other matters - for example, Farrugia says that he has been proposing that citizens should have a remedy against what is said about them in Parliament since 2014, and he has also proposed that the Speaker should have the right to highlight Ombudsman reports and recommendations for discussion in a plenary or parliamentary committee.
Asked why he feels there may not be that much will for the Standing Orders to be updated, Farrugia says that any will has to come with a certain level of conviction. The fact that the Standing Orders remain largely untouched since the 1960s is "worrying", he says.
"There's a government and an Opposition - and they alternate; today it's the PL, tomorrow it will eventually be the PN - and it's useless one saying that they'll do it when they are in government; you have to take the bull by the horns... you cannot just keep waiting for it to be fixed," he says.
He adds that the government, Opposition, their whips, and parliamentary groups need to come together and "respect the people" because it is unacceptable, for example, for PQs to go unanswered.
The Standards Committee and a legal hold-up
The role of the Standards Commissioner has been a controversial one as of late.
This is a Parliamentary office, which was introduced while Farrugia was in office and which the Speaker has a leading role in implementing, by leading the parliamentary committee which ultimately decides on the Commissioner's reports.
George Hyzler was the first Standards Commissioner, but when he was sent to the European Court of Auditors, talks for choosing a successor proved harder than the law had foreseen.
The legislation, at the time, read that the Standards Commissioner required the backing of at least two-thirds of Parliament members - but when the government and Opposition failed to agree on a nominee, the government introduced an anti-deadlock law, which would basically culminate in allowing the appointment to be made by a simple majority - meaning that the government's choice would ultimately win.
When asked whether the government's ability to push through their own nominee undermines the credibility of the Standards Commissioner's office, Farrugia responded that the deadlock needed to be resolved.
"If they were to never agree, do we remain without one? Looking at much larger countries than us, for example in Italy, when they appoint a President it's on the basis of a simple majority. I'm not saying that this should always be done - I would prefer if they reach an agreement and there is a two-thirds majority. I was very happy that they agreed on a President at the eleventh hour, for example. I think what happened in this case is that both started putting forward candidates and then some pique comes in between them," he says.
There were suggestions however at the time that the Speaker should be involved in some way in order to break a deadlock. Farrugia acknowledges that, but says it was never discussed. Would he agree with the suggestion though?
"Let's say I agree, but I would prefer that they reach an agreement between themselves," he replies to that question.
But there is a much graver issue at hand, which relates to how the committee, which ultimately decides whether to adopt the Commissioner's report or not, can issue sanctions.
Much of the controversy has related to issues surrounding complaints on government advertising. As long ago as August 2021, the Standards Commissioner had found that Minister Carmelo Abela had used €7,000 of taxpayer funds for an advert solely intended to boost his personal image.
The committee back then hadn't adopted the report, and since then, the current Standards Commissioner Joseph Azzopardi has recommended that the guidelines, pertaining to government advertising, are enshrined in the law. This was in August 2023. A year later, the guidelines remain un-implemented.
This means, Farrugia says, that if the Standards committee had to apply any sanctions then it would be breaching the rights of the person on the receiving end of the sanctions.
"Nemo iudex in causam propiam" he cites: meaning that nobody can be made a judge in his own cause.
"If the law isn't defined then you cannot apply a penalty. The Standards Commissioner agreed with my interpretation and said that it has to be enshrined in the law - and I said on Sette Giugno very clearly that they need to get to it," he says.
"Now if people want to criticise how the Speaker uses the casting vote, the best thing is to study the law first," he adds.
The guidelines refer to the word "sanction". "What does that mean? It can refer to a verbal warning - like we have given in the past - but then it can also involve a monetary aspect, such as telling one to refund money. How do you apply it if it's not law?" Farrugia says.
"We corresponded and agreed, and the Commissioner agreed as well [that it had to be enshrined in the law]. I sent it to both sides, and they did nothing," he laments.
Third term
This is Farrugia's third term as Malta's Speaker - the longest anybody has ever served in this position. Would he be willing to remain on for a fourth term, should the chance arise?
"I thank God that I remain healthy. I have the privilege of saying thanks to my wife. She doesn't appear much in public as she doesn't really like to, but I have a lot of support from her in what I do," he says.
"I can't say what's going to happen - the important thing is that I have nothing on my conscience and I do everything as I should, in accordance with procedure, with the law, and obviously to see that the country keeps moving forward. What I'd like to see is that all that we have spoken about is addressed," he concludes.
A second part of the interview will be carried tomorrow