Parliamentary privilege is defined as legal immunity enjoyed by members of certain legislatures, in which legislators are granted protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties.

This is common in countries whose constitutions are based on the Westminster system, like Malta. In other systems, different forms of immunity from prosecution are also granted to MPs.

In the United Kingdom, parliamentary privilege allows members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to speak freely during ordinary parliamentary proceedings without fear of legal action on the grounds of slander, contempt of court or breaching the Official Secrets Act. It also means that members of parliament cannot be arrested on civil matters for statements made or acts undertaken as an MP.

The same situation has been inherited by our House of Representatives.

The reform of parliamentary privilege is a subject which has been mooted several times in speeches by the Speaker of the House, Anġlu Farrugia, during the Sette Giugno ceremonies.

This may have come as a result of a blatant abuse of privilege by MPs, especially by certain opposition members in the last legislature, which remained unsanctioned due to the existing absolute privilege.  

I firmly believe that parliamentary privilege plays an important role in a democratic society, since the public interest may require that a member of the House of Representatives should be able to speak his or her mind freely and without fear of being sued in the courts.

That is something we have to keep protecting in a zealous manner.

On the other hand, it is felt that, from recent past experiences, granting absolute freedom in all circumstances to MPs, to say absolutely what they like, does not show an adequate level of respect for other fundamental rights including the right of the individual to his or her reputation and the right to a fair trial.

The use of information obtained by MPs through the practice of their professions, to attack other MPs or citizens outside the house not for public interest but for partisan or vindictive reasons, may fall short of the rights which a modern democratic society is expected to guarantee to all.

A proper balance, therefore, needs to be struck between the granting of legal immunity to MPs to allow them to perform their duties without interference, and the right to a remedy for the private citizen in respect of their reputation and other rights.

The complainant would be able to sue the MP for libel or slander and the matter would then be decided by the courts- Edward Zammit Lewis

A considered reform of parliamentary privilege is imperative and long overdue. It would enable a person to file a complaint with the speaker about things said or written about them in the house.

If a system like the one I am proposing is introduced, the speaker would be obliged to mediate the complaint between the MP and the complainant.

If no amicable settlement is reached, the matter would be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges, which for this purpose would be composed of the speaker as chairperson and of two members from the government and two members from the opposition benches.

Each member sitting on the Committee of Privileges would have one vote and the speaker a casting vote.

A recommendation by the committee in favour of the suspension of parliamentary privilege would need three out of the four votes available. In case of deadlock, the speaker would have the discretion to exercise a casting vote.

For a recommendation to move forward to the House of Representatives, three votes in favour of the recommendation would be needed. In the house, an approval of the suspension of the parliamentary privilege would need a majority of the votes of all members.

The consequence of an approval of the suspension of parliamentary privilege by the house would be that the complainant would be able to sue the MP for libel or slander and the matter would then be decided by the courts.

Short time limits would have to be established for the filing of the complaint, for the reaching of an amicable settlement and from the day the report is made by the standing committee, to resolving whether to suspend the privilege.

A further time limit would be needed for the filing of the action in a court of law by an authorised complainant against the particular MP.

I do hope my humble proposal will provide the basis for a full-scale national discussion on this pressing issue, so that a proper balance may be struck between protecting the public interest through the free speech of MPs and curbing abuse by any non-ethical MP against the rights of our citizens.

Edward Zammit Lewis is a Labour member of parliament.