MPs from both sides of the political divide want to give shorter speeches in parliament.

They say this would allow a better focus on the topics that are being discussed and encourage more involvement from MPs.

“Parliamentary debates are not mass meetings,” Nationalist MP Karol Aquilina said, emphasising that speeches should concentrate on the issues parliament is discussing.

“I notice people often get lost in other points while speaking,” he said.

Aquilina said MPs can easily make their points in 10 or 15 minutes if they are well prepared and are familiar with the bill being discussed.

Today’s rules allow government ministers to take up to an hour to speak about a bill they have presented. Their opposition counterparts also have an hour.

Any other MP participating in second reading debates has up to 30 minutes to speak.

I was dumbstruck when I was told I had an hour to speak- Miriam Dalli

Energy Minister and former MEP Miriam Dalli said she got a culture shock when she moved from the European Parliament to Malta’s House of Representatives in 2020.

“I was dumbstruck when I was told I had an hour to speak,” she said.

In the European Parliament, MEPs never speak for longer than five minutes.

“Thirty minutes or an hour is too much time and people often move onto different subjects as a result,” Dalli said.

“MPs often use their time to speak about the topics of their choosing, not what is being debated,” she said.

Both Dalli and her party whip, Naomi Cachia believe a shorter speaking time would lead to more focused speeches and more participation from MPs.

“We should promote delivering shorter but straight-to-the-point speeches,” Cachia said, pointing out that a cultural shift needs to take place.

More MPs would be encouraged to participate if speaking for shorter periods was normalised, she said.

MPs almost always vote along party lines but, still, some can give unique perspectives on an issue, she said.

“Delivering a 30-minute speech requires a certain amount of research; not everyone has so much time,” Cachia said, especially when considering that Malta has a part-time parliament.

Parliamentary debates usually take place during the second step of a bill’s procedure to become law, dubbed the second reading.

After the plenary debate, the bill goes to the consideration of bills committee before going to a final vote.

Snipping speaking time won't see bills passed faster 

Home Affairs Minister Byron Camilleri, himself a former party whip, said most of the work takes place at the committee stage.

Having shorter speaking times might lead to more focused deliveries in parliament but it will not help make parliament pass bills faster, he said.

Camilleri said that, during a second reading debate, MPs usually speak in generic terms about what the bill will do and why it is needed or not needed.

“In the consideration of bills committee, we look at the details and go through each clause and each word that is used,” he said.

So, reducing speaking time in the plenary will not do much to speed up the passing of bills, he said. Bills would pile up at the committee stage instead.

PN whip Robert Cutajar said any change in parliament’s rules, such as how long one can speak for, would need to be decided in a specially set up committee. 

“We need to change several things and speaking time is not our priority,” Cutajar said.

In a letter dated July 2022, Cutajar and PN MP David Agius called for a committee to change parliament’s standing orders.

Among the proposed changes, the PN wants to introduce a weekly sitting for the prime minister’s questions.

“This proposal is based on what goes on in the House of Commons,” the letter reads.

Cutajar and Agius wrote that days when the opposition controls the agenda should also be more frequent than once every six months and that a committee on justice should also be set up.

The PN is also calling for more resources for MPs.

While ministers have policy advisors, the opposition and backbench MPs have no one, Aquilina said.

“The lawyers in the PN parliamentary group help other opposition MPs but that is just out of goodwill,” said.

“MPs should have advisors who help them understand and write bills,” he said.