I have often tuned in on the channel that transmits parliamentary sessions and, except for a few rare occasions, I have found the debate rather long and boring.

Through your editorial For a Better Parliament (TMID, 19 January), I learnt of proposals that have been made by Nationalist whip Mario Galea, and I wonder why they have not been taken up.

The idea of having a question time for the Prime Minister, say once every month, and that the opposition is asked to set the agenda itself, also once a month, would make at least those two sessions more interesting than most of the rest.

I am sure that question time would not be an easy ride for the Prime Minister. To have MPs from both sides of the House, but especially from the opposition benches (I would presume), putting one question after another on all subjects would make the session highly fascinating.

I have often watched British Prime Minister Tony Blair face a similar barrage of questions on television and I must say that those 30 minutes are probably the highlight of the UK parliament. I am sure it would be the same in Malta.

I also agree that 40 minutes is too long a time for speeches. You have suggested a 15 to 20 minute speech, but I would go one step further and propose five-minute interventions, perhaps even three minutes as is the case in the European Parliament.

Of course, when important topics such as the budget are being discussed, this should be extended. But, on a regular basis and when minor laws are being debated, I believe that five minutes for each MP is enough.

In this way, Parliament would move at a much faster pace and people listening in on the radio would not get bored.

Emm. Camilleri

Sliema