TMID Editorial: Parliamentary Time Limits, Editorials, Necessary Changes

Parliament officially opened on Saturday as parliamentarians took an oath and the Speaker of the House was re-elected.

This parliament, Malta, has the largest number of members in history-79.

There are a few things we want this newsroom to do differently than it did in past Congress.

As an example, MPs should be allowed to vote for their ideas more often, rather than frequently confronting the party line. Here we will talk about not only the bills submitted to Congress, but also the motions submitted to Congress. MP represents the person who voted for the MP, not just the party.

We also hope that they will find a way to build a better partnership and listen to each other.

Another problem is that there are times when controversy breaks out in Congress, and that’s for the right reason … but sometimes meaningless quarrels are effectively a waste of time. We hope that the MP can act in a professional way to avoid such situations. If there’s a good reason for disagreement, I’ll argue that, but meaningless snooping and cheeky comments to spur the reaction are a waste of time.

In connection with the above, we hope that the MPs can be more critical of their own party colleagues in the Commission. We often see members of one or another party defending a colleague who is clearly wrong or choosing to remain silent. This needs to be finished. The interests of the country must first and foremost be prioritized over the loyalty of the party.

One of the main points that needs to be addressed is the length of time allotted to parliamentarians to speak in parliament. It’s too long. The European Parliament model works better. You don’t have to listen to the MP speak for 20 minutes just to repeat what the MP said before it says. Perhaps the main speaker will take 10 to 15 minutes and the subsequent MPs will each take 5 minutes or be along those lines. This needs to be taken into consideration now that the size of the parliament has expanded significantly.

Parliamentary questions are arguably a very important time during the parliamentary session. In many cases, the minister who is asking the question will not attend and one of his colleagues will answer. Of course, this practice should be stopped unless there is a good reason, such as the minister being abroad or being ill. In practice, this practice means that you cannot really properly answer supplementary questions.

Finally, Congress needs to consider some form of staff for members who do not have government positions. These MPs are currently doing this job part-time, but until it changes, they continue to work full-time, and perhaps when raising a family, how they do their research well. Can you expect it? Unless you consider the concept of full-time MP, you need some form of support. TMID Editorial: Parliamentary Time Limits, Editorials, Necessary Changes

Back to top button