The Sette Giugno commemoration has been characterised by the speaker’s address recalling the progress made by parliament since the 1919 riots led to its formation two years later.

Last Tuesday, Speaker Anġlu Farrugia celebrated the fact Malta now has the biggest parliament in its history, and the largest representation of women within it. He also touched briefly on action needed to make it more efficient, thankfully including the possibility of reducing time limit for speeches, changing the time when the House sits, and possibly introducing full-time MPs.

While improving the efficiency of the House is always welcome, what is urgently needed and what, crucially, was missing in Farrugia’s address, was a call to make the House more effective.

Laudable efforts to strengthen its effectiveness in holding the government to account have not worked. Sure, progress has been made, such as through the appointment of the ombudsman and the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life as well as the Public Accounts, and other committees.

But we are in a situation now where the Public Accounts Committee cannot even agree on its own procedure, MPs cannot agree on the appointment of a new ombudsman, and the standards commissioner has been rendered as effective as a lap dog. 

Both the ombudsman and the standards commissioner have issued documents proposing a way forward to strengthen the effectiveness of their offices. These independent officers, falling under the aegis of the speaker, need whatever support they can to help them in their important work.

Yet, the speaker did not utter a single word of support, not even a call for their proposals to be considered forthwith. 

The primary duty of the speaker – and hence the term – is to speak for the House – and it was therefore morally incumbent on him to demand that the parliamentary institutions are able to function effectively.

The primary duty of the speaker – and hence the term – is to speak for the House – and it was therefore morally incumbent on him to demand that the parliamentary institutions are able to function effectively

That applies equally forcefully to another growing problem in the House – the lack of information coming out of replies to parliamentary questions. MPs’s protests are invariably met with the stock reply that the chairperson, in terms of standing orders, cannot tell ministers how to reply to MPs. All true, but the chairperson should insist that ministers show due respect to the House by coming up with the replies demanded of them.

A positive suggestion made in the speaker’s address focused on the introduction of a citizen’s right of reply when damaging remarks are made under privilege in the House. There is no doubt that the exalted freedom of speech granted by privilege should be retained for the people’s elected representatives. Modern means of mass communication mean people can quickly and effectively reply, but introducing a reply within the record of the House would be fair.

Farrugia, again, in his address touched on calls for the introduction of full-time MPs, although he did not take a position. 

It is clearly a subject which needs to be discussed if we are determined to make parliament effective. 

In far larger countries, MPs are full-time because they need to travel hundreds of miles to sit in parliament, meaning they cannot juggle their ordinary jobs with parliamentary duties.

A similar move in Malta could entice well-committed candidates who could devote their time to research on matters before the House.

However, in reality, that role could also be left to professionals who would then brief the MPs.  There is also the risk that the introduction of full-time MPs could also keep away serving and prospective MPs who are currently established in their respective fields and would be reluctant to give up their private practice. It might also signal the exit of the few quality backbenchers.

But these are subjects we need to start discussing at once. Parliament cannot keep operating with the same systems of years gone by.