Former Speaker Anġlu Farrugia was correct in his 2023 ruling refusing an urgent debate over calls for a public inquiry into the death of Jean Paul Sofia, Speaker Carmelo Abela has said, but indicates that a discussion should take place into whether the Opposition should be given more space to raise issues in Parliament.

During an interview with WhosWho.mt, Speaker Abela was asked about a certain controversial rulings his predecessor took, such as rejecting the request for the aforementioned urgent debate. Speaker Abela was asked specifically how he would have decided that request, and whether he believes the criteria that need to be met for an urgent debate to take place in Parliament should be changed.

Speaker Abela stressed that the Speaker's role is to observe and act according to Parliament's Standing Orders. He said that Standing Order 13, under which an MP can request an urgent debate, has three criteria that need to be met.

"Many-a-time the 'urgency' criteria is the one which stops a debate from taking place under this Standing Order, because urgency is not always present." 

Speaker Anġlu Farrugia was correct in the rulings he took, Speaker Abela said. "So much so that the Opposition did not challenge them by filing a motion in Parliament for the ruling to be changed."

He said that in such cases, the Speaker's hands are tied, because of the three criteria. 

He again said that urgency, to stop Parliament's planned work to discuss a topic before anything else, is often the criteria which is a sticking point. The other two criteria are that the matter is of public interest and that it be a topic of national importance, he said.

"So we are either going to change the way we decide on a request for an urgent debate, otherwise almost every request for an urgent debate would likely not be able to be accepted. I do remember one time, however, regarding a project that was to be undertaken in front of St John's Co-Cathedral, where the Planning Authority at the time was going to decide on a permit. Urgency was important in that case as Parliament had to discuss the issue before the Planning Authority took a decision on the permit. So urgency was evident."

"As for whether we have to change things or not, one would need to look into it when we review or update the Standing Orders. However, in general I feel that the Opposition, in its requests for debates it wants, should be given space. As for how we do that, we need to be sensible."

In his opinion, it would also be in the Government's interest for there not to be an objection should the Opposition have topics it wants to discuss. 

"Maybe in the future, even when we review the Standing Orders, the Speaker of the House could play a more important role, taking certain decisions where, if he/she feels the Opposition should be given more time to raise its issues, then a way be found how to do it." Currently, the Opposition has a very limited number of days a year in which its own issues can be discussed.

He said that there are Parliaments abroad where this is done. "I believe that with an open mind we should at least discuss these kinds of things.”

But if there is a request under Standing Order 13, which would likely get stuck on the urgency criteria, he said he would have no alternative but to decide as Speakers before him have.