The new Parliament building being erected at the entrance of Valletta suddenly appeared in the political spotlight last week for the wrong reasons: Last Sunday Joseph Muscat told his followers that contrary to what the government had originally indicated, the project was being financed by a bank loan.
From an economic point of view, the new parliament building is, of course, a non-starter. Perhaps we would eventually call it Gonzi’s folly- Michael Falzon
A cynic would probably react by pointing out that the government is using a bank loan to build a Parliament building from where even more government borrowing could be approved.
What is much more interesting from a historical point of view is that the building is Valletta’s first with a structural steel framework – a fact that has not really been pointed out.
I can already hear the purists moan but this development should surprise no one.
In current times, we use building techniques prevalent in the year 2011, not those of 400 years ago.
After all, the first building to be constructed entirely out of metal in Malta was the covered market in – you guessed it – Valletta.
Projected in 1845, the market was built on the vacated site of the old prison in Valletta.
Despite numerous interventions over the years, the original internal Victorian metal structure stands to this day.
Today no one in his right senses says that this beautiful metal structure is an incongruity that should be removed and replaced by the old prison that originally stood in its stead.
After all, it is hardly touchable, considering that the planning authority has rightly listed the covered market as a Grade 1 building.
From an economic point of view, the new parliament building is, of course, a non-starter.
Perhaps we would eventually call it Gonzi’s folly, much as there are some who sometimes refer to Mater Dei Hospital as Eddie’s folly, although in that case Alfred Sant’s folly made Eddie’s folly even more of a folly.
But then, many a famous building exists because of some politician’s folly!
What is even more interesting is that the way the building is being constructed – having a robust steel frame that is eventually to be clad with stone on its exterior – let alone the type of internal finishes that are going to be used – is not conducive to pumping much money into the local economy.
Infrastructure projects such as the new parliament building and the new breakwater bridge in fact belie those economists all over the world who have historically considered infrastructural projects as a means to create jobs and to give a kick-start to the construction industry whenever it is in a lull.
Designed by Renzo Piano, the new Parliament building will no doubt end up as a beautiful piece of architecture of which Malta will be proud.
Eventually it will even be appreciated by those who have denigrated it in the most amateurish ways imaginable.
However, the nature of the structure is such that a lot of the money being loaned by government to pay for the building will end up in some steel works abroad, and in the pockets of foreign consultants – including those entrusted with project management, on whom the government is justifiably relying to ensure that the project is completed on schedule, that is, just before the 2013 general election. Everything comes at a price.
In any building project a percentage of its cost ends up in the wage-packets of the workers employed by the contractors and sub-contractors carrying out the job.
The sum total of this component depends on the type of construction adopted, more so considering the limited resources of our country.
Obviously this percentage is higher the more the project is labour-intensive.
Dom Mintoff was obsessed with the idea that the money paid for infrastructure projects should remain in Malta as much as possible – not just the wages constituent of the cost.
He went to extremes to ensure that a large percentage of the cost of infrastructure projects ends up in the pockets of local workers and traders.
Since stone is our only mineral resource, he made a fool of himself by insisting that stone should be used for finishing factory roof surfaces, for making road kerbs and for whatever he wanted done, besides being even used as a structural element in water tanks and grain silos.
The traditional Maltese way of erecting a building or carrying out an infrastructural project puts more money in workers’ pay packets than other ‘imported’ types of construction.
To cite an obvious example: the new steel breakwater footbridge – aesthetically beautiful as it is – can hardly compare with projects such as housing blocks or schools as regards the percentage of the project cost that ends up in the pay packets of Maltese workers.
Malta’s economy is now an open one and we did well to shed the old Mintoffian siege mentality, but this does not mean we need not bother to see whether the money we spend remains in the local economy.
In our circumstances, we should certainly not follow blindly the otherwise normal advice of economists who talk of infrastructure projects giving a fillip to the economy in times of depression.
micfal@maltanet.net