A month has passed since Malta commemorated the 7 June 1919 riots - an occasion during which the Speaker of the House of Representatives traditionally reflects on the state of parliamentary work and proposes ways to improve it. Yet year after year, it is clear that both the government and the Opposition pay little attention to what the Speaker says. At worst, they ignore him altogether.

In observing Sette Giugno, Malta rightly honours the sacrifices made in 1919 that eventually led to self-governance and the establishment of the country's first Parliament in 1921. But more than a century later, it is no longer enough to simply pay homage to the ideals of democracy - we must continue to strengthen and evolve them. That is precisely the spirit behind Speaker Anglu Farrugia's persistent and principled call to reform parliamentary procedures and give citizens a right to remedy when parliamentary privilege is abused.

For a decade, the Speaker has raised a vital issue that strikes at the heart of a mature democracy: accountability. Parliamentary privilege is a cornerstone of legislative freedom, designed to protect Members of Parliament from external pressure while debating matters of national importance. Yet, like any powerful tool, it must be exercised responsibly. When that power is misused - when MPs name private individuals, sometimes falsely or maliciously - there is currently no recourse for the wronged. This is a dangerous loophole, and one that risks eroding public trust in the very institution meant to represent and protect them.

Farrugia's consistent call for a "citizen's right of reply" is not a threat to parliamentary freedom. On the contrary, it is a safeguard for democracy itself. This mechanism would simply give individuals the right to respond, through an official and structured process, when they are unfairly targeted in Parliament. It would not limit debate or restrict speech - it would uphold fairness and ensure that parliamentary privilege is not used as a weapon against the powerless.

The inaction of both the government and the Opposition on this issue is disappointing. It is ironic that a Parliament created to reflect the will and protect the rights of the people has failed to give those same people a basic measure of justice. Citizens cannot sue MPs for defamation for words spoken in Parliament, no matter how damaging or untrue. This is not a theoretical problem. There have been multiple instances over the years where individuals have been publicly named and at times slandered in the House, only to be left with no opportunity to defend themselves. Reputations have been ruined. Families have suffered. And yet Parliament remains silent.

This must change.

The solution proposed by the Speaker is both practical and respectful of the unique role of Parliament. By amending the Standing Orders and possibly other related legislation, a citizen's right of reply could be formally introduced. This could take the form of a short written response, vetted by an impartial committee, which is tabled in Parliament or published in the official parliamentary record. Such a response would not interrupt proceedings or give rise to endless rebuttals. It would simply acknowledge the voice of the citizen - something any functioning democracy should welcome.

Opponents of this reform may argue that it could open the floodgates to frivolous complaints or be exploited for political gain. But the same concern can be raised about any democratic safeguard, from free speech to judicial review. What matters is not the possibility of abuse, but the establishment of a fair and transparent process to manage it. With clear criteria and oversight, the right of reply can be responsibly implemented, offering justice without compromising parliamentary integrity.

This system is already in place in the media - anyone can write in as a "right of reply" to articles published in newspapers. Why should Parliament not follow suit?

Moreover, the Speaker's broader point must not be lost in the legal technicalities. He reminds MPs that the title "honourable" is not ornamental. It is a solemn duty to uphold the values of truth, dignity, and public service. When MPs use parliamentary privilege for personal vendettas, partisan attacks, or baseless accusations, they degrade the institution they are meant to elevate. Parliamentary sessions should not resemble mass meetings or partisan rallies, he said; they should reflect the highest standards of democratic discourse. Live broadcasts, meant to increase transparency, must not be abused to score political points or to unjustly tarnish reputations.

Implementing a right of remedy would not weaken Parliament - it would strengthen it. It would show that MPs are confident enough in their own positions to allow fair rebuttal. It would demonstrate that Malta's democracy is not afraid of accountability. And it would finally answer the Speaker's decade-long plea with action, not just words.

Giving citizens the right to reply when they are unjustly attacked in Parliament is one step towards giving further protection to democratic values. It is time for both sides of the House to stop delaying and start acting.

The people deserve nothing less.