The need for improvements to be made to the way Parliament operates has long been a topic of discussion in Malta.

Indeed this newsroom has brought up the need for certain changes in the past.

Recently, in an interview with The Malta Independent on Sunday, PN Whip Robert Cutajar said that although the Maltese Parliament is modelled on the Parliament of the United Kingdom, there are certain elements of the latter that the Maltese Parliament has failed to incorporate, such as the weekly Prime Minister's Question Time during which the head of government answers questions from the MPs.

Cutajar is right to point this out. Prime Minister's Question Time should be introduced in the Maltese Parliament, and would go a long way to improving transparency. If not weekly, at least it should be held once every two weeks, where for that half hour the Prime Minister would have a slot dedicated where he would need to answer questions from MPs. It would give MPs easier and scheduled access to the head of government, to which they could ask questions about the most pressing concerns in the country. This would be of benefit to the public.

Cutajar also said that some parliamentary committees go months without meeting, which he said is unacceptable. Such situations should not be allowed to happen. Parliamentary Committees are there to perform specific tasks and ultimately, to hold the government to account.

There are other issues that must also be brought up, including one which the Speaker, Anglu Farrugia, recently addressed in a ruling. Farrugia urged MPs to consider updating parliamentary rules when he noted that they don't provide timeframes in which Parliamentary Questions must be answered.

Having ministers just delay answering questions for prolonged periods is unjust. MPs are there to hold the executive to account, and Parliamentary Questions play an important role in doing just that. By not delivering timely responses, it goes against the concept of transparency. Some form of mechanism to deal with such situations is needed.

Another point that should be discussed is the Standards Committee composition. Parliament should consider introducing members of the public, requiring some sort of fair mechanism for their appointment, into the composition of the committee. It is difficult to expect MPs from a political party to come down harshly on someone who forms part of their same political group. It should also not always end up in a situation where the Speaker has to use his casting vote.

One more issue is the lack of support staff for parties in Parliament, particularly for whichever party is in Opposition.

MPs who are not ministers are part-time, holding down full-time jobs outside of Parliament. One can spend ages arguing whether this should be changed or modified, but that is the way things stand now. MPs are expected to conduct in depth research about laws being proposed, to point out flaws, to propose changes and provide reasoned and studied explanations for their positions, and the technicalities do matter. All this without any support staff. It is worth considering, for instance, that each political party be allocated some parliamentary research staff, which could improve Parliamentary work.