Editorial

What a sad month this is turning out to be in Parliament. First we had MPs trading accusations of violations of the ministerial code of ethics, then Labour MP Anglu Farrugia accused Environment Minister George Pullicino of physically attacking an elderly man, a charge that was denied.

In another instance, Labour MP Joe Mizzi, told Roads Minister Jesmond Mugliett he agreed with comments scribbled on a wall about the minister being corrupt; later Mr Mizzi specified he did not condone any violence or vandalism.

The Speaker found Mr Mizzi's accusation to be, prima facie, a breach of privilege. Mr Mizzi is now contesting the ruling in the House itself - a facility not enjoyed by non-MPs when a privilege complaint against them is upheld.

There was more in the House... In the space of two days, sittings were interrupted by 15 calls for quorum by Mr Mizzi. In each case the reason given was not so much poor attendance as, in Mr Mizzi's words, to protest over a lack of protection by the Chair after, he said, Mr Mugliett failed to reply to his questions in Parliament. On Monday he said he was protesting over the "crisis" in Parliament, where the Opposition was increasingly prevented from exercising its scrutiny role.

Mr Mizzi, like every other MP, has every right to call a quorum whenever fewer than 15 of the 65 members of the House are present. However, it is not likely that this facility was ever meant to be used as a sign of protest, thereby bringing the business of the House to a halt. Hopefully, what has been taking place this month will hasten the process for reform of the Standing Orders, including not just the issue of quorum but also privileged speech.

For the accusations of corruption and physical assault were extremely serious. That they were made against other members of the House meant that their intended targets could claim the protection of Standing Orders, which provide that no MP may use offensive or unbecoming words or attribute bad motive in reference to any member.

The purpose of this rule is to ensure that the members of the House act in an honourable manner, not just for reasons of mutual respect, but also to protect the dignity of the House itself.

But what if the accusations were made against non-MPs? It is a basic right for MPs to have freedom of speech in the House with immunity from prosecution, but what about accountability? The only good thing to have come out of the controversies was the call by Labour MP George Vella - during the exchanges on the ministerial code of ethics - for Malta to have its own Committee On Standards in Public Life, based on the UK model.

That committee, originally known as the Nolan Committee, led to the creation of the post of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards whose responsibilities include providing advice on a confidential basis to individual MPs and to the Committee on Standards and Privileges about the interpretation of the code of conduct, training MPs on matters of conduct, propriety and ethics and receiving and investigating complaints - even from the public - about MPs who are allegedly in breach of the code of conduct.

This, clearly, is a path which Malta should follow. There is need for updated and agreed Standing Orders and a code of conduct for ministers, but that has to be complemented by effective and autonomous machinery where complaints can be made and investigated. Accountability demands no less.