In his ruling on July 18 on a breach of privilege complaint by Labour MP Joe Mizzi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives made two points which need to be elaborated upon further.
In the first, on which we commented last week, the Speaker declared that a letter sent to Mr Mizzi by the lawyer of an individual mentioned by Mr Mizzi in the House "should never have been sent". He pointed out that the House Privileges Ordinance gives MPs the right to express themselves in the House with total freedom without anyone from outside the House daring in any way to hinder, threaten or censure them.
True, the ordinance says that: "The sending to a Member of the House of any threatening letter respecting his conduct in the House" constitutes an offence against the ordinance, but we argued last week that while respecting the privilege which MPs enjoy, members of the public mentioned by name in the House should be able to explain or clear their name. It is not the sending of a letter to an MP which is wrong, but sending a "threatening" letter. The Chamber of Advocates publicly argued that the letter sent to Mr Mizzi was not threatening even though it urged Mr Mizzi to repeat his comments outside the House.
Clearly, society has evolved and the people expect to be given the possibility to defend themselves when they are attacked by MPs under the immunity of House privilege.
That does not mean that privilege should be done away with. MPs should continue to have the right to bring out facts and, if necessary, even mention names, without fear of prosecution, when that is seen as required in the public interest. But then, members of the public should also, within the boundaries of the law, be free to state their case, without MPs seeing that as an affront on their privilege. Privilege should be there to serve the public, not the other way round.
The dignity of the House and proper public perception of MPs requires that the powers and privileges of the House are exercised responsibly. Mr Speaker, Anton Tabone, therefore, was correct in his ruling to also urge MPs to avoid mentioning people from outside the House by name "unless 100 per cent necessary". He pointed out that this is already being done in parliamentary questions, where the names of private individuals are given "under separate cover". Standing Orders are clear on this point, laying down that "a question shall not publish any name or statement not strictly necessary to make the question intelligible".
No such safeguards exist for speeches in the House. Once mentioned by name, an individual has a difficult task in setting the record straight (if it needs to be), more so as fair media reporting of House business is also covered by privilege.
Minister Censu Galea in a recent adjournment speech asked the Chair to look into how some MPs were carrying extracts of their speeches on the internet without carrying any replies.
Basic fairness demands that any accusation is balanced by a reply. Mr Galea, a Member of the House, said this was not always happening. Imagine, therefore, how non-members of the House feel when confronted by such situations.
Mr Tabone urged MPs to exercise self-discipline and prudence in the way they behave and express themselves. It is a message which needs to be hammered home in the interests of the House.