TMIS Editorial: Parliament must stop talking about reform and start delivering it

A new legislature always brings with it a degree of optimism. Fresh faces, renewed promises and a willingness to improve institutions often create the expectation that lessons from the past will finally be acted upon.The first few weeks of this term have already generated discussion on a number of reforms that deserve attention. Yet experience tells us that good intentions alone are not enough. Parliamentary reform has become one of those subjects that is endlessly debated but rarely concluded.There is no shortage of ideas. There has never been.The problem is that reform too often remains trapped in committees, consultations and political negotiations until it quietly disappears from the agenda. Years later, the same proposals re-emerge, are welcomed once again, and the cycle starts all over.The latest suggestions deserve better.The proposal by Nationalist Whip Ivan Castillo to establish fixed parliamentary dates for sittings and recesses is both sensible and practical. Parliament should not function according to the convenience of the government of the day. While it is natural that the government determines much of the legislative agenda, this should not extend to controlling the parliamentary calendar with little certainty for Members of Parliament themselves.Fixed parliamentary dates would make Parliament more organised, more professional and more family-friendly. MPs would be able to organise their legislative responsibilities alongside their professional and personal commitments. Exceptional circumstances would still allow flexibility, but they should remain exceptions agreed by both government and Opposition rather than becoming the norm.Equally positive is Speaker Carmelo Abela's willingness to examine the introduction of childminding services within Parliament. If Malta wants more young professionals and parents to enter politics, Parliament itself must remove unnecessary obstacles. A modern legislature cannot continue operating as though family responsibilities do not exist.The same applies to the Speaker's commitment to revisit the security barriers surrounding Parliament. Security considerations are important, but Parliament should also remain physically and symbolically accessible to the people it represents. If legitimate security concerns can be addressed without creating unnecessary distance between citizens and their democratic institution, then every effort should be made to achieve that balance.These are constructive discussions. The question is whether they will lead anywhere.Too many reforms have spent years gathering dust.Perhaps the most glaring omission remains the absence of a Prime Minister's Question Time.Malta has inherited much of its parliamentary tradition from the United Kingdom. Yet one of the most effective mechanisms of democratic accountability has never been adopted. A dedicated session in which the Prime Minister answers questions directly from MPs would significantly strengthen parliamentary scrutiny.There is little justification for continuing to postpone such a reform.The same can be said for another proposal that former Speaker Anglu Farrugia repeatedly championed throughout his 13 years in office: giving private citizens the right to reply when they are mentioned unfairly under parliamentary privilege.Parliamentary privilege exists for good reason. Members of Parliament must be free to speak openly without fear of legal action. Democracy depends on that protection.But privilege should never become immunity from responsibility.There have been instances when MPs, in Parliament, make allegations about private individuals. When this happens, those citizens, apart from not having any legal right to challenge what was said, currently have no parliamentary mechanism through which to defend themselves. Farrugia repeatedly argued that the Standing Orders should be amended to provide such a remedy. Year after year, he repeated the appeal. Year after year, nothing happened.His argument remains entirely valid today.Members of Parliament should exercise their privilege responsibly, but accountability requires safeguards against abuse. A carefully designed right of reply would not weaken parliamentary privilege. It would strengthen public trust in Parliament itself.Then there is the issue that should concern every citizen: ministers simply failing to answer parliamentary questions.Parliamentary Questions are among the most important tools available to MPs to scrutinise government. When ministers leave hundreds of questions unanswered, they are weakening Parliament's constitutional function.The figures published this week should concern everyone. More than 1,200 parliamentary questions went unanswered during the previous legislature, with the ministry responsible for transport recording the highest number.This cannot become acceptable practice.The Speaker may not possess the authority to compel ministers to answer every question, but the office carries moral authority and institutional responsibility. The Speaker should consistently monitor unanswered questions, raise concerns publicly where necessary and insist that ministers treat Parliament with the respect it deserves.Ultimately, ministers are accountable to Parliament before they are accountable anywhere else.None of these reforms are revolutionary. Most have been discussed for years. Some for decades.What has consistently been missing is political will.Governments naturally resist surrendering powers or creating stronger mechanisms through which they can be challenged. That instinct exists everywhere. But democratic maturity requires governments to recognise that stronger institutions do not weaken those in power. They strengthen the legitimacy of government itself.A Parliament that enjoys fixed procedures, accommodates modern family life, remains accessible to the public, allows citizens to defend their reputation, subjects the Prime Minister to regular questioning and demands timely answers from ministers is simply a Parliament that works.The new legislature still has the opportunity to prove that parliamentary reform is more than another collection of worthy intentions. Malta has debated these issues long enough.It is now time for Parliament to reform itself with the same urgency that it so often demands from everyone else.