Government Whip Naomi Cachia believes that the 30-minute time limit for MPs is "adequate", while Opposition Whip Ivan Castillo said that the allotted time should be reduced to between 15 and 20 minutes, with the possibility for MPs to be allotted half an hour should both sides of Parliament allow this exception.
"I don't believe we should change our Standing Orders to reduce MPs' speaking time," Cachia said in comments to The Malta Independent on Sunday.
"I think debates must provide more MPs the opportunity to speak in them," Castillo said.
The Parliament of Malta will resume its work tomorrow after the summer recess.
This newsroom contacted both whips of the Maltese Parliament to ask them whether they think the maximum speaking time for elected officials should be reduced. The Parliament of Malta typically permits its elected MPs a maximum of 30 minutes to get their points across during a parliamentary debate.
Castillo observed that Parliament speeches should discuss the spirit behind proposed laws and that technical elements should be reserved for the internal Committee Stage. Hence, he said that reducing speaking times "could force MPs to stick to discussing the spirit of the law, rather than going into detail" as expected in latter stages of the legislative process.
Castillo hopes for this issue to be discussed in the PN parliamentary group and in the Parliament's House Business Committee. He hopes for this discussion to be based on data, such as by first finding out the average speech length (and the number of plenaries allocated per bill) and perhaps for the Speaker to base new speaking time limits on this median time.
In spite of having different opinions on the length of speeches, the two whips agreed on some principal points. Both noted that MPs do not always use up the full half-hour, with Castillo calling this is a rarity. The two observed that Parliament's speaking time limit does not withhold any MPs from giving very brief speeches - it simply stops them from occupying the floor for what Parliament's Standing Orders deem to be too long.
Last July, the Speaker of the House, Carmelo Abela, told The Malta Independent on Sunday that he is firmly against reducing the allotted speaking time for Members of Parliament.
Speaker Abela's view contrasted the calls of his predecessor, Anġlu Farrugia, to reduce speaking time to 15 or 20 minutes. Farrugia had repeatedly advocated for MPs' speaking time to be shortened throughout his 13-year tenure as Speaker of the House.
Farrugia has gone on record several times stating that MPs could get their arguments across in 20 minutes or less, however, Speaker Abela told this newsroom that "I felt that 30 minutes was not enough for me to get my point across, and I sometimes felt I needed more".
Speaker Abela had noted that "just because speaking times are shorter abroad doesn't mean we have to do it as well". He had argued that the crux of the issue did not lie in the lenient speaking time limits, but rather that MPs should use their time responsibly.
Speaking time for Maltese MPs
Plenaries within the Parliament of Malta are held every Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, between 4.30 and 7pm, preceded by 30 minutes of question time and followed by 30 minutes of adjournment, during which MPs can speak on any subject they like.
If, during a particular session, MPs take up all their 30 minutes, it would mean that just five MPs would have spoken during the two-and-a-half hour session.
The 30-minute limitation contrasts sharply with the fast-paced proceedings of the European Parliament and several other national assemblies. While hosting around 10 times as many elected representatives, the European Parliament's plenary debates occur much less often, and so it must prioritise efficiency in its workings.
For instance, during the EP debate organised for Daphne Caruana Galizia's assassination anniversary and "delayed justice and rule of law backsliding in Malta" last October, the opening speakers, speaking on behalf of their European Parliament groups, were given just two minutes to disclose the entire group's position. Individual MPs participating afterwards had just one minute to share their input. MPs looking to question speakers were only allowed 30 seconds to pose their question; the MP in question had as little time to respond.
The EP is, of course, a different forum when compared to the Maltese Parliament, which is based on the British Westminster system; however, it did not adopt the House of Commons' stricter speaking time limits. The House of Commons houses 650 MPs, who derive from over a dozen political groups.
The UK Parliament permits speeches of up to 20 minutes made by MPs speaking on behalf of the British government, for the Leader of the Opposition, and for the leader of the second largest Opposition party. For topical debates, this is reduced to 10 minutes. In addition, "in such speeches, one minute is added for each intervention accepted, up to a limit of 15 minutes".
UK backbenchers may be imposed a formal time limit by the Speaker to allow as many MPs the chance to speak; this time limit may be altered during the debate itself.
It is common for British backbenchers to take the floor for around two and five minutes at a time.
However, Speaker Abela had told this newsroom that one must not compare the Maltese Parliament to the European Parliament, as Malta has a fraction of elected officials by comparison. So, how does the situation compare in parliaments of a similar size?
Speaking times in Luxembourgish Chamber of Deputies were halved in 2024
Luxembourg is as comparable as EU countries can get to Malta. Luxembourg is the second smallest country in the European Union after Malta, both in terms of population size and land area. Despite being larger, Luxembourg has a smaller parliament.
Luxembourg's Chamber of Deputies consists of 60 MPs. Malta has 79 elected MPs following the 2026 general election.
In 2024, the Luxembourgish parliament adjusted its speaking times with the aim of making individual speeches shorter, thus allowing for more questions to be heard and to promote a more dynamic debating environment. Speaking times during standard plenaries were halved. The speaking time limits vary depending on the kind of debate being discussed, with different speaking time models ready to be applied as per the Luxembourgish Chamber of Deputies.
Two of the longer speaking time models, which ran up to 1,000 minutes accumulatively, were cut altogether.
When a bill passes through the Committee Stage without any amendments or significant comments, no report is thus submitted, and it goes straight to a vote. There exists one model where a report is put forward but no debate ensues; here, the government has five minutes of speaking time.
From the models used by the Luxembourgish Chamber of Deputies, the government is given either five, 10, 15, 20, half an hour or 50 minutes of speaking time. Its base model, three standard models, and two hastened procedures all grant less speaking time to whole political groups, including the government, than the Maltese Parliament does to individual MPs.
One of its speaking time models - the longest one - is reserved for debates on the state of the nation and debates on financial and budgetary policy. This model grants each political group with 50 minutes maximum speaking time, with 12.5 minutes of speaking time per MP of each group.
The Luxembourgish people elected seven parties into its parliament this term, with the government coalition consisting of 35 MPs across the largest two parties.
Malta has just two parties elected to Parliament; since Maltese Independence, its duopoly has always existed. Though the Parliament of Malta's Standing Orders outline speaking time limits in reference to MPs, not their parties. Malta's bipartisan parliament is uncommon in global politics and, as a result, its speaking thresholds are not defined by giving all elected parliamentary groups a fair amount of time to procedurally make their voices heard through the nature of its mechanisms.
However, analysing the Luxembourgish model begs the question that if parliamentary debates flow much quicker through a staggering difference in speaking time limits, why can't a more efficient model be replicated in Malta?
'Change of mindset' needed before installing quicker debates in Maltese Parliament
Labour Party whip Cachia said that a mindset change is required for the Parliament of Malta to possibly have quicker-paced debates, as seen within the European Parliament - with maximum speaking times cut to five minutes or less.
Cachia said that she has considered whether it would be better for MPs to have less speaking time. She recognised that doing so would make her and Castillo's roles as whips more challenging and that it would result in more MPs speaking about matters beyond their expertise.
The Parliament whips are tasked with organising their respective parties' parliamentary groups on what is the party line on a given issue, deciding for how long any matter should be discussed in the House of Representatives, and organising MPs wishing to participate in a debate by sometimes telling them to not use up the full 30 minutes due to time constraints. For instance, Cachia told this newsroom that she often asks her PL MPs to try and stick to 15 minutes; whether they fulfil this request is a question of its own, out of her control.
Cachia argued that letting MPs speak for half an hour at a time is "not a problem" and that the amount of time taken per intervention varies with the bill being discussed and the MP's speaking style. She said that some bills, by nature, cause parliamentarians to talk for longer and that some MPs simply need less time than others to build their arguments and get their points across.
Is Parliament boring? Perhaps.
Cachia and Castillo were asked whether they believe broadcasting parliamentary sessions can be boring.
On hearing this question, Cachia chuckled and responded: "Without a doubt." She noted that "it can be boring, even if there are many speakers, but we cannot stop speakers from speaking".
Castillo responded more positively, saying that he does not believe Parliament is boring for those who are interested in the subject being discussed. He said that after hearing arguments from both sides of the House, the public can quickly realise that the matters being discussed will affect them at some point.
On the flip side, he acknowledged that "some people listening could understand the technicalities being said, but then there could be others listening that may be lost if we delve into them".