The Cabinet will discuss the City Gate project tomorrow and then launch a broad consultation on how it should develop, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said in Parliament this evening.
He also said when asked whether or not Parliament would be transferred to the projected new Parliament House that while the building block earmarked for the parliamentary chamber could not, 'by any stretch of the imagination' be used for any other purpose, the other block, housing offices, was too small.
The issue was 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 problems. He was still waiting official information on the extent of those problems and therefore he could not say when the project would be completed.
The government would consult widely on how the project would develop.
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.
Dr Muscat, who discussed the project with architect Reno Piano last week, said the government would be inviting the Speaker to head a broad consultation with the President, the opposition and the public.
He had no preconceptions about the project, Dr Muscat said, and he would be careful how to speak because this was a publicly listed project.
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 was possible, but it was not.
Dr Muscat explained how the projected Parliament House consisted of two blocks. The first was the Parliament Chamber and by no figment of imagination could it be used for anything else.
But the block which would house the administration, committee rooms and offices was too small and this issue needed to be discussed further.
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?
Importantly, Dr Muscat said, the government wanted this building to be alive and more easily accessible to the public. Did it make sense to use it just for 10 hours a week? Could it be made an attraction? This was something which was also discussed with the project architect, Renzo Piano.
This could not be simply a palace for the politicians.
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.
It was good that the prime minister wanted greater public access to the new parliament building and indeed the ground floor was aimed at a permanent exhibition of Malta's political and constitutional 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.
Dr Muscat said the government had a duty to explore all avenues.
He also said in reply to another question that 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.