Past Speakers of our House of Representatives, on the whole, except for the few occasions when some controversial ruling was followed by rambunctious and unbecoming behaviour from MPs, have been quite competent and respectful in carrying out their parliamentary duties.

Still, I sometimes wonder whether we truly fully understand the fundamental importance and function of the Speaker's role in presiding over parliamentary sittings. Indeed, I believe that there is justifiable cause for reforming the manner in which our Speaker is chosen and appointed.

The Speaker is a very special parliamentarian, and not just because he has his own oversized office chair. Speakers are chosen by the House, but in reality, this choice just formalises the selection made by the nominee's parliamentary party, as Speakers have somewhat always been affiliated with the prime minister's party.

Foremost, serving as Speaker is a significant honour, as this role is pivotal to the functioning of the House, which ultimately determines the laws of the land. He also has onerous responsibilities to assert authority over members, administer the parliament and uphold parliamentary traditions.

In truth, most candidates for the speakership lack prospects for promotion to the ministry, not necessarily on grounds of lack of ability, but often due to insufficient political standing within the party.

So what does the Speaker do while occupying the perfect spot for overseeing the chaos of 79 clamorous parliamentarians? And where did this democratic tradition come from?

The role of Speaker is old and venerable. In Westminster, the first Speaker designated as such was appointed in 1377.

The position remains robust in contemporary Malta, as we have embraced Britain's Westminster parliamentary system along with numerous associated traditions. In our case, the Speaker is a member of the House who, upon election to office, becomes its principal officer, fulfilling constitutional, traditional, ceremonial, statutory, procedural and administrative roles.

The Speaker's most visible role is presiding over House sittings by enforcing standing orders, the main rules by which the House conducts its business. Managing the commotion of Question Time doesn't constitute all that goes on in the House, much of which is comparatively routine and dull.

There are more than 200 rules to enforce, which include details about how long members of parliament's speeches, questions and replies can be, how votes are taken, how to deal with petitions, and how to manage disorderly behaviour.

Any seeming deference to the ruling party is counterbalanced by an impartiality with roots in the Maltese "fair go" ethos. Such fragile non-partisanship has probably been helped by the fact that the speakership is not usually a pathway to political promotion.

Most Speakers have successfully balanced party loyalty with wider expectations of the office, with the occasional outlier.

This notwithstanding, absolute trust by all in the Speaker is pivotal in deference to his sensitive institutional role, more so as it is his duty to ensure that the right of Members to free speech is protected and exercised to the fullest possible extent, and this is why the method of the Speaker's appointment is in dire need of reform.

I believe that to function effectively and be politically impartial in parliament, it's about time the Speaker of our house should be a non-member of parliament.

We are missing an opportunity for democratic renewal of our parliament by allowing ruling parties to determine who the Speaker will be.

The importance of having an independent Speaker goes beyond merely giving red cards more even-handedly. The reality is that the speakership has become so politicised in Malta by both sides of the House that we have been blinded to the possibilities that having a truly impartial Speaker might open up.

The current controversy over the Speaker of the House of Representatives has highlighted that position's role as one of the most important elected officials in Malta. However, the Constitution provides only limited details regarding the position of the Speaker and the process by which the House selects them. It only spells out a very broad role for the Speaker.

Considering that the Constitution stipulates that if the president is unavailable and no acting president is appointed, the Speaker can fulfil that role, the least one should expect and augur is a constitutional amendment providing for the election by a two-thirds majority, like the president, the chief justice, the ombudsman and the auditor-general.

Without an independent, impartial and fully trusted Speaker, parliamentary democracy remains deficient.

Various Speakers have used different leadership styles in their critical jobs as the House's institutional leader. Today, the role of Speaker of the House has become more complex as the size of government has grown.

In the meantime, the incumbent Speaker should strive to emulate John Bercow, who served as Speaker of the House of Commons from 2009 to 2019 and who sought every day to restore faith in Parliament, to ensure a House of Representatives which is truly representative, effective and reconnected to the people they serve.

By the way, let's not forget the unsung Clerks. The Clerk administers the Department of the House of Representatives and advises the Speaker and members on parliamentary law and procedure.

They are a parliamentary officer, not a politician. In the House, the Clerk must be prepared to provide immediate and sound advice to the Speaker.

The Clerk and the Speaker, working in tandem, have the potential to hold the highest institution of our country in everybody's esteem.

Dr Mark Said is a lawyer