Parliamentary Privilege, abused

A modern democracy requires a transparent parliament – not only a transparent government – but also a transparent opposition.

Frank Portelli 1 July 2010, 12:00am

3 min read

The rules and regulations governing the Maltese parliament are molded on those of the British House of Commons.

Parliamentary privilege is one such regulation. Members of Parliament are protected by parliamentary privilege. MPs can make statements, whether true or false, make any allegation whether true or false, make any implication whether true or false, and ask any Parliamentary Question whether they or their colleagues have any financial interest in the matter – without fear of civil or criminal proceedings. In this regard Members of Parliament are above the law.

In a modern society no one is above the law. Parliamentary privilege came into being in a different era, in England It was the time of conflict between the king and parliament. In 1397 an MP criticized the king’s personal expenditure and had to claim parliamentary privilege in order to save his head. In 1689 the Bill of Rights formally established parliamentary privilege, which gave immunity from court proceedings to members of the House of Commons.

Our constitution replicates the British parliamentary privilege through Art 65 (3) which states that: “No civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of the House of Representatives for words before, or written in a report to, the House or a committee thereof or by reason of any matter or thing brought by him therein by petition, bill, resolution, motion or otherwise”.

Parliamentary privilege was meant to protect members of parliament if they needed to speak freely – for the good of the country. I know of no instance in the last 30 years when parliamentary privilege was of benefit to the country. Parliamentary privilege has been abused ad nauseam.

The questions we have to ask: Should Parliament be a haven from the law? Should MPs be above the law? In the UK, three former Labour MPs, David Chaytor, Elliot Morley, Jim Devine and the Tory peer Lord Hanningfield, are being accused of making fraudulent claims, on their parliamentary expenses, a crime punishable by imprisonment. They are using parliamentary privilege to defend themselves. They claim that they cannot be prosecuted – because they enjoy immunity from prosecution. The Crown Court has disagreed and and they have been released on bail pending appeal. They are persisting in their defence and their case is now in front of the Court of Appeal.

Earlier this year the Hon. Censu Galea, now Deputy Speaker, was reported as saying that there is ‘no room for parliamentary privilege in this day and age’. This because he felt that parliamentary privilege was used maliciously in his regard. A modern democracy requires a transparent parliament – not only a transparent government – but also a transparent opposition. Nothing that is said or done in parliament should be above the law of the land. Recent events where a Labour MP asked a parliamentary question on a subject in which one of his colleagues had a financial interest, has reinforced my belief that parliamentary privilege should be relegated to the dustbins of history.

More from Frank Portelli

chris caruana turner •

Doc. Portelli is arguing that transparency should not only come from Government, but also from the opposition. I go a step further, and claim that any transaction that involves ppl's money HAS to be done in a transparent manner. I therefore agree with the other blogers that its not a matter of deciding whether to buy or not St. Philip's hospital, but rather WHY? Why this hospital and not refurbish others already owned by Gov? Back to my original comment related to the state of St. Philip's hospital and the debt that this hospital has, including that which is owned to the members of staff that used to man this hospital with professionalism and dedication. Why doesn't Doc. Transparency here, settle this debt? Or is he waiting for these ppl to take him to court to claim what is rightly theirs, as was the case in a couple of other situations where ppl that used to work for Doc Transparency had to take him to court to be given the remuneration that they were owned? Or is it the case that you speak about transparency, but you fail to understand this fundamental concept, Dottore?

Luke Camilleri •

Cut the double talk, set the example and practice what you preach and just be Transparent! Transparency is needed for the public in the modus operandi Of Gonzipn in Government actions and decisions of the party in government to give LIGHT and dispel any whiffs or not so regular dealings which seem to always surface when Gonzipn is selling off and now purchasing another hospital, which dealings are not so transparent and clear to all Transparency in needed for the sake of good will, good governance and accountability. The best deal is to be secured in the purchase of a new hospital. It is our money that is going into the deal and we deserve TRANSPARENCY to assure all that purchase is truly for need and not greed. There are two hospitals, both in Prime and central locations Zammit Clapp and Boffa, not to mention the Karen Grech Block and the rest of the blocks that used to form St. Luke’s Hospital so why buy another hospital and at what price and FOR WHAT price ? ?

Alfred Galea •

A transparent govt. would tell the people WHY it "might" buy St Philip's Hospital when it has at least two empty hospitals sitting idle. Unless, of course, there is some ulterior motive involved, like "silencing the lamb".

Angelo Cassar •

Here is the topic A modern democracy requires a transparent parliament – not only a transparent government – but also a transparent opposition. Frank portelli

Alfred Galea •

Any comments on transparency and the negotiations for the probable sale of St Philip's Hospital to the government?? Everybody has a price.

chris caruana turner •

Ma jkunx ahjar dott, jekk tnaqqas ftit mil priedki u tagixxi. Per ezempju, dawk il haddiema li tant hadmu fl isptar tieghek u ghadhom ma thalsux ta xogholhom. Ma jidirlekx li haqqhom, at least, ftit rispett ghas snin twal li ddediikaw w il pagi b lura ta numru ta xhur? Huwa facli illum li wiehed jidher subajh dritt, u jippriedka min fuq pulptu, huwa aktar difficli mid dehra li wiehed jaghamel dak li suppost issir.

Alfred Galea •

Very good excuse not to discuss....no surprise though. If I were in "your" position I'd write under my own name too, but I'm not so I don't. Doesn't alter the fact that you're obsessed with anything PL and in my opinion reduce your credibility in what you write. I mean you're writing about parliamentary privilege and mentioning a PL MP and not mentioning those who said that Justyne voted NO when she voted yes, and it was proved that she voted yes, smells a lot of bias and partisanship. Anybody, whether named or not, can write insinuations and innuendos, without mentioning any names and giving any facts.

Angelo Cassar •

Anonymity On this blog I write under my own name – inviting an open discussion I am not prepared to enter into any discussion with persons who remain anonymous. Frank Portelli

Alfred Galea •

A Labour MP yadda yadda yaddda........your party has a majority in parliament, you should persuade it to introduce a motion to amend the constitution, instead of the usual "PL bad, PN good". As for transparency, the PN Government is not doing such a very good job isn't it? That's where YOU should start. The Power Station and the White Rocks Sports Complex and the "buying" of a private hospital.