Speaker wants MPs to draft guidelines on use of mobile phones during parliamentary debates
Speaker Anglu Farrugia yesterday called on both sides of the House to engage in a mature debate and come up with guidelines on the use of mobile phones during Parliamentary sittings.
He was delivering a ruling after Opposition Whip David Agius had claimed that some government MP had taken a picture of an agitated PN Deputy Leader Beppe Fenech Adami, which was then uploaded on OPM blogger Glenn Bedingfield’s website.
Mr Agius said it was obvious that the picture was taken from the floor, and was not a screenshot taken from the Parliament livestream.
Speaker Farrugia said yesterday that he had looked at footage from a bird’s eye view camera installed high up in the chamber but was unable to pinpoint the MP who had allegedly snapped the picture. “Several government MPs were using their mobile phones at the time but one cannot tell if any of them were taking pictures as the devices seemed to be pointed downwards,” he said.
Dr Farrugia said that, even if an MP had been caught snapping away on his phone, there were no regulations on the use of such devices in the chamber. While standing orders made it clear that visitors were not allowed to use their mobile phones, let alone take pictures, there were no guidelines for MPs.
In the absence of such rules, the Speaker looked at House of Commons procedures and found that there are inter-party agreements regulating the use of mobile phones, even if these are not always respected. Dr Farrugia called on both sides to engage in a mature debate to draft the much-needed guidelines.
In another ruling, Dr Farrugia said an editorial in the GWU newspaper l-Orizzont had not reflected a speech by PN MP Censu Galea. The editor had written about an ‘incensed attack’ by Mr Galea and two other PN MPs against Social Liberties Minister Helena Dalli during a debate on a law related to the Malta Council for Social and Economic Development. Dr Farrugia said he looked at the transcript of the day. While the editor had a right to an opinion and to criticize, his words in this particular editorial did not reflect what the PN MP had said. The editor would be sent a transcript of the debate in question to decide whether he should publish a correction.
A third ruling was related to comments passed by PL MP Michael Falzon on the National Audit Office. A couple of weeks back Dr Falzon launched a barrage on the NAO, claiming that it had two faces, depending on who it was dealing with. The former Parliamentary Secretary said the NAO had intended to group four separate investigations into one report – something he said had never been done before – before realizing it should not “go so low.”
He asked whether the NAO was only following the agenda set out by certain newspapers, and what action was being taken after it was revealed that an NAO employee had gone abroad with a certain PN MP (Jason Azzopardi).
Replying, Dr Farrugia said he had no remit to answer these questions and a full transcript of Dr Falzon’s speech had been sent to the Auditor General.
On Dr Falzon’s ‘strong’ comments on an NAO employee, Dr Farrugia said it was the Auditor General who should decide whether an investigation was warranted or not. The Speaker also tabled a letter the Auditor General sent in response to Dr Falzon’s comments.