When Parliament moved to its new building, many thought this would also help bring about a leap forward in parliamentary business. But, rather than an improvement, there appears to have been a deterioration, with the Speaker having to warn members overstepping their mark that they risked suspension.
Parliament is not exactly a place for the faint-hearted as its work often involves debates that call for sharpness of mind and language. However, there is a limit to what is acceptable or not.
There have been times, particularly at the time of the Mintoff and Mifsud Bonnici administrations, when Labour members went far beyond that limit, bringing down shame on the House. But with the passage of time, many believed MPs had learned their lesson and that as representatives of the people they ought to behave as they are expected to – correctly.
But some MPs never appear to learn, and remarks made by the Speaker the other day suggest that the House needs to put its house in order. Following what has been described as a shouting match between the two sides over vulgar language used by a Labour MP when replying to a parliamentary question, the Speaker said the move to the new chamber, and the introduction of direct video broadcasts, had prompted some MPs to raise the temperature.
This reflects badly on the political class. When trust in politicians keeps diminishing, it is strange that the politicians themselves do not make an extra effort to see what can be done to improve their image in the eyes of the public.
Some MPs appear to have the impression that the more they shout and the more they appear to act aggressively, the more political points they are likely to score, not realising their antics are no longer acceptable.
The Speaker found that the language used by one MP was unsuitable and, when the debate deteriorated, warned that he would resort to standing orders and use procedures that had not been used for years. In other words, MPs risk being suspended for a week on the first offence, two weeks on the second, and a month for subsequent infringements.
The standard of the language used in debate, both in and out of Parliament, has been on a downward slope for years now. Why, for example, is the word ‘lie’ being accepted today? Up to only recently, it was not permitted, but it appears that in today’s world anything goes. The word is offensive and politicians ought not to give in to political pressure and use it at will as if it were acceptable.
It may be considered hypocritical to suggest the use of other words that may mean the same but are less directly offensive. This may well be so but if the country is to have improved standards, it is important for politicians to act as courteously and correctly as possible, both in behaviour and language. No politician worth his salt is likely to hold back from using strong language in the cut and thrust of a debate but there is a line that ought not to be crossed.
It is politicians themselves that are giving politics a bad name. Codes of ethics and parliamentary standards are not worth the paper they are written on if they are not adhered to with the kind of rigorousness that is expected of the people’s representatives.
Such rigorousness has to be followed all the time, but particularly at times like this when the two main parties are locked in ongoing skirmishes over corruption, accountability, and transparency.