Is it not hugely ironic that, just at a time when the European Commission is pressing the government to further cut its spending by €40 million, Malta is building a new Parliament building?
Of course, the plan to build a new house for Parliament was hatched before the government drew up its financial estimates for this financial year. However, the irony stands because the need to cut the government’s financial deficit had been felt long before that. And, in any case, as so many people have often suggested when the government came up with the idea of building a completely new House, it could have found another building where to place the institution in Valletta.
The Prime Minister, Lawrence Gonzi, said some time ago that when the House of Representatives moves to the new building, the Palace would be transformed into a historical centre, which would be another attraction that will benefit the commercial community. Obviously, no one would be against such a plan.
Like so many other buildings of the Knights, the Palace is indeed an asset that could and should be made more accessible to visitors. But the government could have considered the alternatives suggested as possible venues for Parliament and the money saved would have been used for other purposes.
How the project will be financed is not yet clear. According to a report published earlier this month, the government does not yet have a target date by when it plans to establish the way in which it will be paying for the City Gate project. Dr Gonzi was reported saying when asked about the project’s €80 million financing that it was only a question of when and not from where the money would come. The financing of a project of this magnitude should have been made clear from the very start.
The government has in mind setting up a financial mechanism through which a company would raise money for the project and then lease it to the government over a number of years. But two years have already passed since the government announced this plan and the Parliament building has already taken shape. According to the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister had given opposition spokesman Charles Mangion a presentation on the financial mechanism and so Labour knew where the money would come from. But the people do not. Are they not entitled to know too?
If, in the words of the Prime Minister, the Parliament building project was part of a strategy to achieve growth and reduce the deficit, the government could have thought of another project. Dr Gonzi said the opposition should stop scaring people about capital projects that improved the quality of life. Building a new Parliament would definitely improve the quality of life for parliamentarians but, though there is no objection to this, the people are still expecting to see the leap forward in politics that the political leaders so often say they would want to work for in their legislatures.
Disenchantment with politics and politicians has increased, not decreased. This primarily stems from the acute partisanship that many of the politicians so often display in their discourse in and out of Parliament. Yes, there are flashes of good sense and cooperation but these are still few and far between.
It is the parliamentarians who would have to give Parliament the dignity it deserves. A new Parliament building would not do it for them.