Editorial

The government's "inclination" to move Parliament to the site formerly occupied by the Royal Opera House will not have come as a surprise to many.

The need for a modern structure to house Parliament has long been felt. The Chamber at the Palace, in Valletta has been in use for some 30 years now. Its décor is bland, with stone used for the benches and yellowing panels behind the MPs. Yet, the problem does not lie there but rather in the fact that MPs do not have enough office space within which to work comfortably.

Ministers operate from tiny offices, sometimes accessible through narrow spiral stairs, and they have hardly any room where to meet their constituents.

The situation is worse for the opposition, which has to operate out of three rooms. Backbenchers have no offices they can call their own. Parliamentary committees too need space. And parliamentary staff have laboured in cramped conditions for years.

Up the road, the old opera house site has been crying out for development ever since a German bomb demolished the architectural gem in 1942. Successive initiatives have fallen victim to misplaced priorities and lack of funds.

Moving Parliament to a redeveloped opera house site would, therefore, appear to make financial sense, killing two birds with one stone, to use an out of fashion expression. But is that good enough?

Successive governments have said they want to breathe new life into Valletta, particularly after the office workers go home and the shops close down. Will siting a Parliament right at the city entrance achieve that purpose?

When St James Cavalier was conceived, the idea had been to eventually link it with facilities which were to have been built on the site of the former opera house. Has that idea been shelved?

It has been argued that setting up a shopping mall on the opera house site would kill off business in the rest of Valletta. Would it really? Would a mix of shops and commercial establishments not have been feasible? And what about recreational facilities?

Has the government given up hope of private sector involvement in rebuilding such a prime site?

One also needs to discuss further whether Parliament should move out of the Palace. That magnificent edifice has been the seat of the Legislative ever since self-government was granted in 1921 - the Legislative Assembly having met in the Tapestry Chamber. As it is the House shares the building with the President, who is constitutionally the head of Parliament. The Palace also houses the Armoury and a number of government departments and constitutional commissions.

Does the government's inclination to move Parliament up Republic Street mean that not enough space can be found in the Palace to meet MPs' needs if a general re-assignment of space is made? Alternatively, has the government considered housing some of the MPs' offices in an adjacent building, as was done for the House of Commons in London? Does Parliament have to move out of the President's Palace?

There is no doubting that the old opera house site needs to be rebuilt. Neither is there doubt that Malta needs a modern Parliament. But are we going to have a marriage of convenience?