Editorial

Hercules, in the second of his 12 labours, as demanded of him by the Greek gods, had to slay the hydra, a dreaded serpent. When he wielded his sword to slice off the head of the hydra, he found to his amazement that seven new heads grew.

Former President Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, in his review of parliamentary standing orders last year, may have had this story in mind when he recommended that the privileges of the House should not be touched.

Perhaps he would have thought differently had he heard the attack made against him a few days ago in parliament by Labour MP Joe Mizzi!

It was the second case in a week that once again led to many questioning the wisdom of having parliamentary privilege. The first was a speech by Labour MP Chris Cardona during which he tabled correspondence by a convicted prisoner in which allegations were made against the prime minister.

Priviliges, or immunity from ordinary law, are enjoyed by parliamentarians all over the world and are deeply ingrained in the history of free representative parliamentary institutions.

Their purpose is clear, to safeguard the sovereignty of parliament and enable MPs to effectively carry out their duties to inquire, debate and legislate in the best possible way.

The privileges and powers of the House of Representatives have been narrowed over time. For example, the House is no longer the judge and jury over privilege complaints. That responsibility has rightly been transferred to the courts, which will hear a complaint if the House privileges committee finds a breach after the complaint is referred to it by the Speaker.

The most significant privilege MPs enjoy is that they cannot be sued over what is said and reported in the House. This is of fundamental importance to the effectiveness of parliament. It is a right which burdens MPs with the duty to speak out on matters which they reasonably see as being in the national interest even when they do not have the supporting evidence which a court may demand.

The strength of parliamentary privilege lies when it is responsibly used to protect the innocent and when the wrongdoers are named, or maladministration or corruption revealed.

The problem lies when MPs take advantage of their immunity to fire off accusations that are seen to be unreasonable and made without proper verification when such verification is possible. The reputation and career of many people have been unjustifiably ruined in this way.

There have been cases abroad when MPs deemed to have abused their privilege were hauled before privilege committees, censured and even expelled from the House.

But hauling MPs before privilege committees, or removing privileged freedom of speech in the House, would be viewed as restricting freedom of speech for political reasons. It is therefore up to MPs themselves to uphold the dignity of the House at all times by speaking responsibly. Abuse of parliamentary privilege is abhorred by the electorate. The House must insist that its members do not abuse their powers. Particularly uncalled for are baseless accusations against people who are not in the House.