Speaker of the House of Representatives Michael Frendo is of the belief that the 40-minute allocation to MPs during parliamentary speeches is too long and is also compounding the quality of what is delivered.

Hear, hear! While Parliament is, and should be, the highest institution of the land, the contributions made within it are sometimes not up to scratch, not well researched, shoddy, and at their worst, cases of verbal diarrhoea.

Speaking to this newspaper in an interview, Dr Frendo said that while the whole world is limiting speaking-times on every spectrum, Maltese MPs still have a 40-minute limit to fill and this can lead to poor preparation, content and delivery.

Of course, this should not lead us to believe that all the speeches which are delivered in Parliament are sub-standard. Far from it. We have some excellent orators who can make excellent cases for debate, whether off the cuff or as a written speech. We have others who are not as skilled in the art of speaking, but their work is well researched and full of information.

But 40 minutes speaking time often allows Members of Parliament – very often the ones who are there on popularity and not merit – to simply ramble on and on about nothing of any consequence whatsoever.

Perhaps it is the media, which the Speaker believes has a very important role to play in disseminating information, which can best attest to the level of what is said in Parliament. Very often, it is very difficult for reporters to stay awake, let alone string together something interesting.

The general rule of thumb seems to be that when Maltese MPs speak emotionally, rather than intellectually, debates are extremely lively, interesting and, at times, explosive. When it is something technical, or prepared for delivery, it tends to be very dull, boring, difficult to follow, and at times, undecipherable.

Perhaps this gives rise to the problem of lack of adjournment speech time, coupled with reporting, simply because the House is bored to tears and speakers do not want to ‘waste time’ preparing something that will not really be noticed.

Of course, the ever increasing trend of newspapers being put to bed earlier does not help the cause, especially when parliamentary sittings in Malta are normally held in the evening, between 6.30pm and around 10pm. This is far too late and still caters for the radio generation.

Parliament is no longer something which the family gathers round the set to listen to before going to bed. Parliament should be held during the day, at an acceptable hour when MPs, the audience and the press are fresh – and not when everyone is thinking about getting some sleep. This happens because the bulk of MPs are out working during the day.

In order to have more daytime sittings (not induced by a parliamentary rift between the PN and PL), it would entail having to legislate for full-time MPs. But this, of course, would not go down well with the professionals who fill the benches. The first gripe would be, “what about my practice?” We have dentists, lawyers, economists, financial advisors and all sorts filling the seats. Would they be happy with a salary and having to give up their practice? Of course they wouldn’t. It would mean a much reduced income. We agree with the Speaker in his proposals for reform within Parliament (read pages 8 and 9), but we must add to his thoughts. The mere fact that MPs (not ministers) would not be happy with a salary raises the question: “Do they really have their constituents’ best interests at heart? Are they really there to serve? Or is it a case of self-importance?”

The real truth is that it is a combination of all the factors mentioned. But in order for Malta and Gozo to have a parliament which runs on the traditional European model, we would need full-time MPs. Yet it can never materialise. Economies of scale will simply not permit it.