Disrespectful towards the highest institution of the country, disrespectful towards themselves and their constituents, and disrespectful towards the public in general.

The backlog of 1,238 unanswered parliamentary questions from the last legislative term significantly damages our parliamentary democracy.

Having most of those unanswered questions relating to three of the most sensitive ministries, transport, foreign affairs, tourism, and health, about which everyone is eager to have the fullest information possible, is even more serious and unacceptable.

In an era where recent legislatures have increasingly struggled to counter the informational and strategic advantage held by the executive, parliamentary questions (PQs) remain one of the few mechanisms that provide legislators with access to vital information and the chance to hold the government to account. This may account for the fact that question time generates notably more media interest than other government activities.

Lately, the questions we've been seeing have struck us as unduly ostentatious.

The prime minister and ministers generally receive supportive questions from party colleagues, providing an opportunity for them to showcase in their answers the competency of their respective ministries and the government. In contrast, the opposition leader and backbenchers present tough questions to scrutinise the performance of ministers and the government. Unfortunately, it is these types of questions that often go unanswered, leading to further enquiries and assumptions due to the lack of crucial information. This absence risks causing greater harm than assisting the ministries that are falling short.

From another perspective, written questions should provide an alternative to oral questions, but even here, our parliament fails miserably in upholding their importance. Answers to written questions matter, as legislators have taken the time to ask the question in the first place.

From the few times that written replies are provided for written questions, it clearly transpires that ministers ensure that their ministries and public administration are portrayed in as positive a light as possible. I deem it quite unlawful or against the rules of public administration for replies to PQs to contain outright lies, and often, subtle drafters are economical with the truth, perhaps even intentionally misinforming the questioner without providing overt misinformation.

As it stands, unfortunately, the Speaker's role does not include compelling ministers to answer questions. The Speaker is responsible for ensuring that members have the opportunity to ask their questions and that ministers are permitted to respond; however, the Speaker does not have the authority to "force" an answer.

Unresponsive prime ministers and ministers are an issue for Parliament to sort out, not the Speaker.

A fundamental restructuring of our parliamentary rules and standing orders is critically necessary.

                                                Will on-the-spot fines change things?

Perhaps a little bit late in the day, but Minister Bedingfield's much-anticipated legal notice introducing on-the-spot fines was a step in the right direction.

Malta has now joined Switzerland, Turkey, Italy, Portugal, Spain and France in tightening tourist rules, with harsh on‑the‑spot fines aimed at deterring anti-social behaviour and protecting public order in our towns and villages, tourist hot spots and heritage.

I suggest that the Malta Tourism Authority and leading travel agencies advertise and make it known that travellers heading to our islands will be entering a far stricter landscape, as we have now rolled out tougher rules and on-the-spot fines to rein in nuisance tourism, protect residents' quality of life and safeguard fragile heritage sites.

I really hope that this measure will sharply tighten how visitors are expected to behave in some of Malta's busiest destinations. Only a few summers ago, misbehaving non-residents might have earned at most a warning, from reserving sun loungers with unattended towels and indulging in drunken, rambunctious misbehaviour to wearing beachwear far from the shore.

One hopes to see an end to non-residents climbing on monuments; sitting to eat on the steps of churches and civic buildings; and outdoor smoking in busy public areas, as well as road safety and driving etiquette breaches.

Malta should now be framed alongside other countries as part of a broader enforcement push linked to sustainable tourism. While rules often used to sit within long-standing local ordinances on noise, litter and public order, they should be increasingly highlighted in consumer travel advisories alongside the newer, on-the-spot, headline-grabbing fines.

Many of these measures can now be justified in the language of sustainability: easing pressure on overstretched old towns, protecting coastlines and parks, and moving visitor spending toward more respectful, higher-value tourism. The effect for travellers will be clear. Behaviours that once passed as holiday high jinks are now explicitly priced, frequently at more than €50 per infraction.

Hopefully, Malta's image will eventually be translated more clearly into expectations for tourists as a highly ordered, rule-conscious society.

The overarching and lasting message must be that Malta's most popular destinations remain open and welcoming, but less tolerant of behaviour that undermines local life.

                                                 Inhuman and health-hazardous childcare rules

Can anyone truly support the existing childcare regulations that impose financial penalties on parents who keep their medically certified sick children at home?

The rule stipulating that parents are entitled to miss only 25 per cent of their booked childcare hours per month, and requiring them to pay for any excess, is both confusing and dangerous.

Beyond financial penalties, parents sacrifice their work routines to care for ill children.

Not only that, but by being compelled to send their sick children to childcare centres, parents risk jeopardising the fragile health of the other children present, particularly if the sick child is suffering from a serious and contagious illness. It is clear that the current childcare rules necessitate a comprehensive review and should be rewritten with contributions from all relevant stakeholders, particularly parents.