In 1976, prime minister Dom Mintoff had moved Parliament out of the Tapestry Chamber to the Armoury Hall at the Palace in Valletta. The contents of the armoury were transferred to the former stables downstairs.
Thirty-five years later, prime minister Lawrence Gonzi decided to relocate Parliament to a new building at the city entrance. The jury was immediately out on whether the 1970s Parliament interior should be retained for its historic value, or whether to reinstate the former armoury. Which was more important?
After Parliament finally moved to its new building by Renzo Piano last year, it was mentioned briefly somewhere that the old hall at the Palace would be used for meetings during Malta’s 2017 EU presidency. I naively understood that the 1970s chamber would be retained for the time being, as it was clearly suitable for meetings.
But last week, images of a refurbishment were published. The chamber has been dismantled and €5 million invested to turn the hall a new, white gypsum ‘meeting room’. We suddenly have neither the 1970s Parliament chamber nor the armoury of the Knights of St John. €5 million is a substantial investment and this is surely not a temporary set-up but will last for many years.
Heritage concerns have been thrown out, to be replaced by a modern conference space which could be located anywhere in Malta. The room looks fresh and functional, but has been emptied of meaning.
Soon after the opening of the new Parliament in 1976, Guido Saliba had written an article praising its modern design. He realised that many people might not immediately recognise its artistic value but augured that “with the passage of time the architectural feat will be appreciated and acknowledged”.
Unfortunately, not enough time has passed. Architectural designs, including interiors, of the 1960s and 1970s are not yet ‘old enough’ to attain widespread approval. This applies to most modernist buildings in Malta, which are still undervalued. Yet another modernist structure by the architect Huntingford in Xewkija, Gozo, for example, has just been earmarked by the Planning Authority for future demolition.
I favoured retaining the 1970s Parliament interior, and not reinstating the armoury. It was still almost intact, right up to the period clock on the wall. The room had a huge historic value. It was the first purpose-built Parliament chamber after Malta’s independence. This was the theatrical setting for countless political debates and landmark speeches, as well as quarrels, tricks and manouevres, in the first decades of independent Malta.
The room looks fresh and functional, but has been emptied of meaning
Ironically, today’s Labour Party, the political heirs of Mintoff, have unceremoniously ripped out the 1970s Parliament, seemingly without any respect whatsoever for this chapter in Malta’s history. Whether this is simply a lack of historical appreciation or whether they intentionally want to forget and erase this legacy, is an intriguing question.
The inauguration was held on Friday, August 13, 1976, on the last day of Parliament that season. A bad choice of day for the superstitious. It was presided over by Sir Anthony Mamo in a “short but solemn ceremony”.
Quite in keeping with our excitable and hot-headed Parliament, the chamber was controversial from its first day. The Nationalist Opposition were not allowed to participate in the decision or preparation of the designs in any way, and had been kept completely in the dark by the MLP government. In reaction, they boycotted the opening ceremony.
As the poet Byron wrote: “History, with all her volumes vast, hath but one page.”
■ The idea of building a tunnel to Gozo is still doing the rounds.
My personal view is that a road tunnel, enabling cars to drive directly to the supposed ‘eco-island’ of Gozo, is not a good idea.
A professional study carried out last year calculated an increase of 1,500 cars per day in Gozo if a permanent road link is constructed, and that may well be a conservative estimate.
Traffic congestion in Malta is becoming disastrous. Our public transport system is wholly inadequate and the number of cars on the road will soon reach gridlock. Extending this chaos and pollution to Gozo is a bad move.
But a tunnel as part of a wider solution for improving public transport, in both Malta and Gozo, is quite different.
Opposition leader Simon Busuttil recently proposed that a tunnel to Gozo should be part of a network for trains, reaching important nodes on both islands. Essentially, this envisages a metro railway system, wholly or partially underground.
A fast, metro train running from Valletta to Victoria, with stops at the hospital and University, Sliema, Birkirkara or elsewhere, sounds good to me.
Less road traffic also means less air pollution. We desperately need better and new solutions for public transport, as at this rate we will soon not be able to move around at all.
The idea is ambitious and its feasibility is a moot point, but please let us take this idea seriously and find a way to make it work.
Enabling a flood of cars to reach Gozo through a road tunnel is definitely not the way forward, but a public railway network, also extending underground to Gozo, is another story altogether.
petracdingli@gmail.com