MPs are mulling whether to cut the waffle and get to the point in parliamentary debates.

The issue is one of a number of rule changes being looked at by a sub-committee headed by former Premier Dame Jennifer Smith and Opposition MP John Barritt.

But the two look like they are on opposite sides of the fence while Mr. Barritt favours truncated speaking times, Ms Smith said: "We haven't agreed on that yet."

The issue is likely to go to the Rules and Privileges Committee and maybe the whole House for a decision.

Currently MPs are limited to three minutes in the congratulations and obituary section early in the day and to 20 minutes on the motion to adjourn, or general debate, at the end of a session.

MPs can only speak once on the principal of a bill but have unlimited time to make their point. And they can speak as many times as they like on individual clauses during committee.

Former Premier Alex Scott backed the idea of limiting speaking time.

He said: "Anybody who has a point to make can do it in maybe 15 to 30 minutes. It's more than enough.

"Otherwise you start repeating yourself. I know I do, you say it differently or at a higher pitch."

Also on the agenda is a set cut-off time to avoid debates dragging on into the early hours of the morning under rule changes which are due to be decided by MPs before the summer break.

In 2003 the UK parliament introduced 'family friendly' hours.

However two year's later MPs, in a free vote, opted for an increase in late-night sittings. A move Peter Hain, the Leader of the House, described as "a significant step backwards".

Shawn Crockwell, who is now the United Bermuda Party Labour and Immigration spokesman, said even speakers in the early evening wouldn't be heard as the listening public would be busy with their own lives.

"So at two o'clock in the morning you know full well that no-one is listening. Who are we speaking to? Are we speaking to ourselves, fulfilling our own self interest?

"Sometimes it is fun to get into a full heated debate but at 4 a.m. it is futile. It doesn't benefit anyone."

Probed on whether change was needed PLP MP Zane DeSilva said: "It depends on the topic. I could say yes in a heartbeat, at times subjects are debated far too long, especially when it is every individual in there.

"But we are members of Government, people like to hear the members they elected. So it's a toughy."

The Budget debate has a certain time allotted for each subject, chosen by the Opposition but Ministers can choose to use up most of the time to avoid having to listen to criticism and questions from the Opposition.

That tactic infuriated Shadow Minister for Legislative Reform John Barritt.

He said the Opposition set aside four hours for debate on Education but Government took nearly three quarters of that after the PLP MP in the chair ignored convention and allowed one Government MP to speak after another, rather than alternating between the sides.

Mr. Barritt said: "Petty, mean-spirited acts like what happened, do nothing to advance critical debate or critical thinking across party lines. On the contrary, they help stoke an adversarial atmosphere."

Mr. Barritt suggested giving the Minister and the Shadow Minister equal time between them and the remaining time would be divided equally for the same number of speakers from each side.

Time would also be reserved for the Minister to reply to questions.

And Mr. Barritt said time limits could bring more disciplined, focused debate on Government Bills.

The member in charge and the shadow spokesman might be given 30 minutes each to present and reply, stating the positions of their parties, but after that each MP would have no more than 15 minutes or so to add to the debate.

But he said there may be occasions when limits would not be appropriate, for example on matters of national importance like proposed amendments to the Constitution.

However Dame Jennifer doubts whether rules are needed as she believes overly-wordy MPs soon know they are annoying colleagues.

She said: "It is a self policing situation. If you are boring, that will percolate throughout. You will notice if members are interesting, everyone is there listening at their desk.

"Because someone is able to say in a sentence, in very few words, and others take more time is not a judgement call I am willing to make. I veer towards them having more ample time.

"Can we use time better? I am sure we can, that is something we are going to discuss."