Parliamentary Privilege, abused

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.