The new parliament building at the entrance to Valletta will be under the microscope at today’s Cabinet meeting following the “informal meeting” that Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and Deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech had with architect Renzo Piano in Paris last week.

The Government is committed to complete the project

Answering a series of supplementary questions in Parliament last night, Dr Muscat said that following today’s Cabinet meeting, the Government would invite Speaker Anġlu Farrugia to bring together both sides of the House and the public for broad consultations on the way forward.

Dr Muscat assured the House that the Government was committed to completing the project, which he called “a masterpiece”. He had no preconceptions about the project and would be speaking with caution as it was being financed by a listed company in which the public had invested.

There would be no pique or politics in the Government’s deliberations.

While he continued to hold the view that the money spent on the project could have been better used elsewhere, the project would now be completed. The Government would not change anything if that were possible, but it was not.

It was evident the project could not be changed, even if major problems have been identified. The building hosting the chamber was custom-built and could not be used “by any stretch of the imagination” for any other purpose but the chamber.

The main building, destined to house the offices of the Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, ministers and individual members – at the former Yellow Garage – was too small.

When the project was launched, he had heard talk of every MP having an office. This was far from being the case. One needed to discuss how the limited space could be used. Did ministers whose ministries were in Valletta need offices in Parliament? Were three, four or five committee rooms sufficient? Could a hall booking system be introduced?

In consultation with the Speaker and the Opposition, the Government must identify the type of resources needed to make the project viable – at least having the same means as those existing at the Palace. The Government did not want to go to a new building carrying the same old problems.

Dr Muscat said that he would like the new parliament building to be accessible to the public – a departure from the original concept. The Government did not want to have a palace just for politicians to spend 10 hours a week.

The project must be used by the public and as an attraction to tourists. As things were, this idea was difficult to realise.

He said he would soon ask the House Business Committee to discuss this transition.

Opposition leader Lawrence Gonzi said the new building would undoubtedly offer greater space and facilities than the current offices at the Palace, some of which could only be accessed through a narrow spiral staircase without a lift.

He welcomed the Prime Minister’s desire to have greater public access to the new parliament building and indeed the ground floor was aimed to be a permanent exhibition of Malta’s political and con-stitutional history.

Furthermore, transferring Parliament would free up the Palace so that it could be properly utilised as a tourist attraction and draw people inside Valletta. He looked forward to the discussion about the project.

The Government had a duty to explore all avenues, said Dr Gonzi.

Dr Muscat told Claudette Buttigieg (PN) that no minutes were taken of his meeting with Prof. Piano as this was an informal meeting, in which the Government wanted to hear “from the horse’s mouth” information about the concept, deadlines and costs of the project. Prof. Piano had welcomed the idea of a conceptual change.

Answering another question, this time by Opposition Whip David Agius, the Prime Minister said there were no plans for the building to house a museum on Dom Mintoff (as a news website had reported).

That, Dr Muscat said, was a figment of somebody’s imagination.

The issue was originally raised in a series of questions by Nationalist MP Jason Azzopardi to Infrastructure Minister Joe Mizzi.

He asked when the project would be completed, its cost and whether Parliament would be moved to the new building on the former Freedom Square.

Mr Mizzi said he was not in a position to say when the project would be completed because of a number of problems.

He was still awaiting official information on the extent of those problems and therefore he could not say when the project would be completed.

Mr Mizzi said it was clear that there were serious shortcomings that, at present, made it impossible for the structure to function as a parliament.

Answering Labour MP Anthony Agius Decelis, Mr Mizzi said that as then Opposition whip, he had not been consulted when the original decision on the project was taken.

He had asked during the House Business Affairs Committee to see the plans but was informed that all decisions had been taken. Therefore, he said, he could not make any input.

But even then, through experience, he could foretell it was impossible for the building to be used as a parliament building.