Parliament meets again today for the first time since breaking for its summer recess at the end of July, as the iconic building in Valletta once again becomes a hive of activity.

Within a few weeks, Parliament will be jam-packed for the Budget, as Finance Minister Clyde Caruana stands to address the House and present the government's plans for 2027.  This is one of the highlights of the Parliamentary calendar, but it is only a snapshot of the work and activity that happens inside the Chambers.

Parliament is the highest institution in Malta's democracy: it is the cradle of power and of where decisions are discussed, debated, and ultimately taken. 

It is an institution which is the topic of a lot of discussion, not just because of the end product that it produces in the form of new legislations and policies for the country, but also because of how it reaches that end.

The procedures of Parliament have been long discussed and debated, and many have had different ideas on how to introduce reforms that will improve the House's output.

For instance, one such reform was the introduction of a Gender Corrective Mechanism for general elections in order to for Parliament's ultimate make-up to be more representative of different sexes and address a specific imbalance that made women severely under-represented in Maltese politics.

This reform has been the source of much debate, with some believing that it shouldn't have been introduced in the first place and others suggesting that it should be tweaked.

But there are other proposals which remain only on paper thus far.

One relates to speaking time in Parliament. Members of Parliament currently have a time limit of 30 minutes for their speeches.  Some choose to use the full half hour, some choose not to.  The suggestion - which was also made several times by previous Speaker Anglu Farrugia - is that this should be reduced.

Speaking to The Malta Independent on Sunday, Government Whip Naomi Cachia said that she 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.

It is an interesting debate, but there is certainly credence to the notion that reducing the allotted speaking times would make the House more efficient. 

One should not go the extremes of the European Parliament where MEPs get just a single minute or, if they are lucky, a minute and a half to speak - but there is a number that can definitely be reached that is an improvement on today but still allows speakers to have substance in their speech. After all, a good speech is not determined by how long it lasts, but by the quality of its content.

There are plenty of other ideas which crop up from time to time.  One of the most significant is that of whether MPs should be full-timers or not.  There is plenty to be said about this, but perhaps first we need to look at the resources that are provided to MPs in order for them to effectively carry out their jobs - resources such as, for instance, staff at Parliament dedicated to research.

Another significant area of debate relates to Parliamentary Questions. There have been plenty of points in the last years where criticism has been levelled against the government for its reticence towards answering Parliamentary Questions.

Speaker Anglu Farrugia time and time again issued rulings encouraging MPs to answer PQs, but each time also noted that he had no power to compel them to do so in a satisfactory manner.  Farrugia had even called for a mechanism that allows MPs to challenge unsatisfactory answers from Minister or a lack of a reply altogether.

Farrugia's successor Carmelo Abela has said that he would be considering the proposal as part of a wider exercise to reform Parliament's procedures - but that in itself requires political will from both sides to happen.

Unfortunately, reform to Malta's highest institution over the years has not been a major priority, with the status quo persisting and continuing to persist.

As the day dawns on a new Parliamentary year, one hopes that this institution is given due respect that it deserves and is reformed to reflect the needs of the day, and address the problems that exist.