Newly-appointed Speaker Michael Frendo tells Kurt Sansone he is no yes man and his duty will be to serve the institution.

How easy will it be for you to change roles from a government MP to an impartial Speaker of the House?
The most difficult part is being an MP and then becoming Speaker, whichever side of the House you are on. It is a strange sensation having spent all your time in Parliament addressing the Speaker and leaving the management of the place to someone else and now having to direct proceedings, making sure the debate flows and order is maintained.

Many people tell me that with my years of experience in Parliament it should be a piece of cake but I do not take that attitude. It is a new and different perspective and I have to serve the whole House.

Impartiality is not something I find difficult to achieve since I have always believed there are two sides to a debate. As long as there is a sense of fairness it should not be a problem.

In the wake of your predecessor's decision earlier this year to allow an emergency debate requested by the opposition on the Delimara power station extension ahead of a planning authority board meeting, many in government spoke of the need to have a Speaker who is a 'Yes man'. Are you a 'yes man'?
I had anticipated the Speaker's decision and expressed my opinion to the MPs next to me in the House because it was the only decision he could take. That is what the rules say.

It was clear the matter was an issue of urgency since there was going to be a decision taken later (the Mepa board decision), which would have prejudiced the possibility of having the debate. I have never been a yes man, not even when I was in Cabinet.

I have never been a yes man, in the parliamentary group. I think yes men contribute very little to society and to politics.

In 1995, when still a minister, you were subjected to allegations of corruption by the then Labour opposition. Nothing came out of those allegations. Do you feel vindicated today after the opposition leader seconded your nomination for Speaker?
In politics if you keeping looking back and seek some sort of vindication you will not be able to approach things in a calm and serene manner. I don't look at it as vindication.

I am happy we have consensus around my nomination and I joked about it in my inaugural speech. I hope that at the end of the term they feel as good about me as they do now because the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I am happy and serene now as when those allegations were made. There was a full investigation and judicial inquiry that cleared my name.

One should not look back but instead look forward and do one's duty. My duty now is to serve Parliament and the institution of Parliament.

The opposition under Joseph Muscat seems to be using Parliament in a more tactical manner, proposing private members' bills and debates on matters of public controversy. Has this energised Parliament?
Parliament has rules which people can decide to make use of. It is important to have a lively House. Members of Parliament have their rights according to the standing orders and it is absolutely correct and appropriate to make the best use of them.

However, I will not comment on the political decision of the Leader of the Opposition to make use of these rules but I would like to see a lively debate, whether it is a private member's bill or government business.

Last Monday, we had a discussion between the Leader of the Opposition and the Finance Minister, which was not strictly in order but went ahead with the leave of House on the public contract awarded to a company whose director was guilty of VAT fraud.

I was evaluating whether to apply the rules of the House or allow the debate to flow freely. It made sense to allow the short exchange.

Do you dread the moment when you will have to use your casting vote if the occasion arises?
I would not use the word 'dread'. I would use the casting vote on the basis of the set rules - but, of course, it is always a decision to be taken with care and attention. However, there is also precedent to be followed.

One of the contentious issues is parliamentary privilege and the right of any parliamentarian to say what he wants in Parliament about anybody but without an individual having the right to defend himself. Where do you stand on the issue?
A lot of caution has to be applied when changing the rules of Parliament because they are tried and tested. The concept of parliamentary privilege is tied to freedom of speech and the ability of MPs to talk without fear. There is a fine line between using this concept and abusing it.

It may be a good idea to have a look at it and see whether we should be looking at the rights of third parties in certain issues.

What rights do innocent individuals mentioned in Parliament have to defend themselves since MPs are not even liable to court proceedings for things they say in the House?
The standing orders do give the Speaker the right to intervene in certain circumstances but the most important thing is for an MP to be able to express himself in the House and not be subject to civil or criminal proceedings. This is meant to be an enhancement to democracy, not an abuse of third party rights.

If there are limits which can be introduced, these would have to be discussed and consensus sought between all parties. We can address the concerns of people without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

After the last election a Parliamentary Select Committee was set up to discuss important Constitutional and legal changes such as the functions of the Broadcasting Authority, electoral law and political party financing. Will the work of this committee be a priority for you?
Yes, it has to be a priority because this committee has an opportunity to discuss the constitutional issues in a calm and serene atmosphere and it has a finite time. What normally happens in parliamentary life is that the closer we get to an election, people become more edgy and therefore there is a time-limit to use this particular moment in the legislature. I will be tackling this as soon as I settle down and go through all the paperwork, this time as chairman of the committee, since I was also a member and so there is a sense of continuity for me. People are looking for results.

Will it produce results before the end of this legislature?
I hope so. I will do my utmost to achieve good results. There is a certain level of expectation even from the public that we see developments in this field.

There is this feeling that everything is being done in a shroud of secrecy with nobody knowing what is being discussed and what proposals are being made.
I would not use the word 'secret' as if the whole affair is being hidden from the public. The discussion is happening in a calm atmosphere behind closed doors but there has also been a period of consultation and listening. We should carry on with our work and be open to listening but we should also come up with conclusions and this is what people are waiting for now.

What changes will you bring about to the workings of Parliament?
It is a bit too early but there have been decade-old studies and reports suggesting changes to the standing orders and we should start making some changes.

I want to bring Parliament closer to the people and one of my suggestions is to have MPs reading out their parliamentary questions in full rather than simply making reference to the number. It would make more sense for people listening to Parliament on radio if they knew what the PQ was all about.

If we want to communicate with the public, our masters, we need to do so in an appropriate way and that is why I will try and achieve consensus to change the relevant standing order. Similarly, I think our speeches are just too long. We should be more concentrated and to the point.

Would you manage to convince MPs to speak for just three or five minutes like their fellow colleagues in the European Parliament?
When I was a member of the European Convention we used to have three minutes unless there were many speakers, in which case we only got two. It is amazing what you can say in two minutes if you really prepare yourself.

MPs will find they communicate better with their constituents and the public if they have well- prepared concise speeches.

An issue related to this is the lack of preparedness of MPs, which also results from the lack of support services MPs have, such as assistants to help them with research. Is this a matter of concern?
It is a matter of great concern. From day one in this office I have started talking about getting access to databases, archives and information sources for MPs.

There is a lot to be done in general about capacity building for Parliament. When we joined the EU there was a lot of capacity building for government departments but we did not do that for Parliament. This institution's capacity has been limited for a long time and we need to ensure it has the necessary tools to carry out its function of being at the centre of debate in this country.

Elected representatives are here to reflect constituents' problems, scrutinise government action and legislate. To do this they have to be prepared.

Do you think people want to watch parliament on TV?
I do not know the answer to that question but I do know that television is another mode of communication and we should be open to all communication channels. There has to be consensus for that to happen but we have to study the ways in which Parliament can communicate better with the people.

I am not one who complains about people who do not pay attention to what Parliament is doing. It is always our duty to communicate our work.

I remember one of my aides when I was a minister who told me that a politician complaining about the press is like a sailor complaining about the weather. It is something we have to live with and it is up to us to communicate.

Our website needs to be revamped and carry more information, possibly also taking into account the use of new technology.

The last election was characterised by a higher than normal abstention rate and a very close result. Why are people becoming more cynical of politicians?
It is healthy to be cynical of politicians because that is a sign of democracy. But it is unhealthy if people do not participate in political life. It is important for people to realise that many gave up their lives to obtain the right to vote. We should always use it and abstention is not necessarily linked to cynicism.

You can interpret voter apathy in many ways. Some argue it is a result of political parties having policies that are not too different. For me, the most important thing is for this institution to provide information and to debate matters of concern to the public.

Is it because Parliamentarians are disconnected from their constituents? Where does a parliamentarian's allegiance lie: with his party or his constituents?
In my position as Speaker I am out of this. All MPs are representatives of the people and how they express that is up to them. But the people are sovereign.

The House represents a wide spectrum of opinion but there is also a wide spectrum of opinion outside Parliament. We have a developing democracy and a vibrant civil society which Parliament cannot ignore.

A challenge to this Parliament is how to engage with civil society and the media and I believe we have to be proactive.

Does your appointment as Speaker spell the end of your political career? Will you be contesting the next election?
I am open to life so I will let life develop. However, in my term of office as Speaker my absolute allegiance is to the post and the institution. This is an institution where one can make some difference.

I am not saying the sun will rise and set with me because there have been many good people in the post and there will certainly be many others after me, but I want to make my contribution to see a parliamentary institution that is stronger.

Is your appointment a highlight of your career or is it the proverbial kick upstairs?
I do not think it is a kick upstairs. Whether it is a highlight of my career I do not know; I will assess that when I look back on my career.

Will you be the Speaker who will inaugurate Renzo Piano's new Parliament?
It depends on what happens in the coming years. It is not up to me to enter into the controversy surrounding the project but I believe that the House needs to have adequate facilities and a professionally developed set-up to enable MPs to perform their work well.

There is a small, dedicated team here in Parliament that works miracles, but it is not enough. Having a new Parliament is not simply a question of having a new building but having more tools to do our job better in the interest of society and fulfil the mandate given to us by the people.

Watch excerpts on timesofmalta.com.

The interview was conducted before last Thursday's Parliamentary sitting.