There we go again. As soon as you mention City Gate, or Renzo Piano, or Parliament, all the hobby horses come out and every one starts to adopt fundamentalist approaches: this or nothing.

That’s why for 60 years we have done nothing with the site of the old Opera House except make it far worse than it ever was when, in the 1960s, the Borg Olivier administration started with City Gate and made such a mess of it that it then had no money – and no cred – to do the Opera House. That’s why nothing came to fruition 20 years ago, when the new PN administration chose Renzo Piano to do the Gate and the Opera House. We talk, we argue, we split into so many factions that, in the end, nothing is done – for to do anything would mean seriously angering the rest. And if an election is near, no one wants to antagonise so much of the electorate.

Which is why the first common ground for agreement that must be sought should be: Doing nothing is not an option. It is not right in our own eyes, let alone the eyes of those who visit here, to sit and do nothing again, to let the Gate remain the bazaar that it is, and let the ruins remain ruins.

This must not mean that what the government is proposing has to be accepted – far from it. On the contrary, the government, in our eyes, (even though we were the first to push for doing something with the site just after the last election) has already made the capital mistake of coming up with the plan ready made, without enjoining the rest of the country in a serious discussion about the principal issues. It is clear that, at some point, public opinion will split, but at least it will have split after a thorough discussion and airing of the issues involved.

At the very basic level the issue is: why should we be doing this at a time when the people of Malta are facing so much hardship and increases in the cost of almost everything? The government would be wise to tackle this very carefully: the impression must not be given that, while the people eat bread, the government is dreaming about spectacular white

elephants.

This then would be the very first level of the way in which a sane government should speak to the country: that while dreams of glory are indeed dangerous, at the same time upgrading the country’s most used site – the entrance to the capital city and the first 100 metres beyond that – shows the country’s self respect. Just as any family, even so poor, would not dream of letting the front door become a shambles.

Once this is settled, the country must move on to the next level. As is written in today’s Letters pages, the decision must be taken over whether to repristine the entry to the capital city as an integral part of the bastions surrounding it – ie a baroque city gate – or create something new.

There is much to be said for going back to the kind of City Gates Valletta had before the British (let alone Borg Olivier) pulled them down. There are enough baroque gates, such as the one known as the Victoria Gate as well as the many gates to be found in Cottonera, to serve as models.

On the other hand, however, Valletta may not take very well to being a uniform baroque city, such as one finds, for example, in Italy. Where would Valletta be, for instance, without its unique market (a very early use of steel for a building) or without its Anglican pro-cathedral (let alone the new Carmelite church that replaced the Glormu Cassar church), or without its classical buildings, such as the Borza (let alone the newish Law Courts), or the Art Nouveau buildings such as Palazzo Ferreria? As was pointed out at a seminar held some weeks ago (and reported by this paper only), Valletta itself began as a city of rather austere, two-storey buildings that a later baroque age turned into the palaces we so love today. If the history of Valletta tells us anything, it is that the city has always had the great quality of absorbing the new and integrating it into a unique living being.

This does not mean, of course, that there is no intrinsic value in repristining the entry gate to a baroque model. Let the debate engage.

After this second level, we come to what is being debated today: parliament building or opera house? Before we split into Guelphs and Ghibellines, let us examine each side.

Let us start with the Arts, since the site was last an opera house.

It is a fact that the Arts in Malta are seriously under-funded. The situation is even worse when we consider the museums’ sector and the huge problems they face. While the “private” St John’s Co-Cathedral (admittedly one of Malta’s best treasures, but not the only one) makes enough money to be able to plan such a huge expansion (whatever one thinks about the environmental aspects), the other museums make do with less and less funding, their upgrading gets put back and huge infrastructural work cannot be undertaken.

In the Arts section, the arts are left to their own initiatives and expenses, most especially in the contemporary arts sector, where Malta – to its great shame – does not yet have a Museum of Contemporary Maltese Art.

And then opera. Everything that has been said about the limitations of the Manoel Theatre and the Mediterranean Conference Centre is, of course, true. It is also true that, were it not for the public spirit exhibited year after year by the two band clubs in Victoria, the Maltese public would not have an opera at all. It is equally true that an opera season of sufficient quality would be a tourist attraction.

But then, how many of those who are in favour of an opera house rather than a parliament building actually go to the opera every time there is one? How many of them would be ready to commit themselves to, let’s say, 10 years of pre-purchased tickets to 10 opera seasons in order to part-fund an opera house? How many companies would be ready to pre-

purchase seats and blocks of seats?

In the other corner, Parliament. Here there is a very serious dilemma. In the eyes of most people, politicians are among the sectors of society about whom many have the deepest-rooted suspicions. Yet, come any election, our voter turnout is by far the highest in the world.

On the one hand, the Maltese Parliament under Dom Mintoff saw some of the worst scenes ever witnessed. On the other hand, under the PN administration Parliament has become an irrelevance, where the Strangers Gallery is always empty, where people never go, where speakers speak for 40 minutes to an empty chamber.

Let’s forget all about the City Gate and Opera House sites. What needs to be addressed is the massive disinterest and total irrelevance that surrounds the House of Representatives. What is needed is not only, or not just, a new parliament building, but a new way of being a parliament. Our MPs and NGOs and so many others do go abroad, visit parliaments and see how other peoples, even – and especially – peoples who have just come out of a communist regime, treat their parliaments. It is successive governments that have made our Parliament an empty House, a House of irrelevance. They have kept MPs part-timers who meet three evenings a week and whose other meetings frequently have to be dovetailed in order to fit in with the main plenary sessions. In the end, in a Valletta that empties of people by 7pm, Parliament much resembles a bar that has remained open until the last stragglers go home.

Just as we said – but was mainly not done – when Mater Dei was built: it is useless to spend all that money if the inner workings remain those of St Luke’s. So too, it is useless building a new parliament building if the old systems are to remain.

Many people, over the past week, have been shocked by what an ex-MP and ex-Minister wrote last Sunday – that, in his opinion, Parliament can stay where it is and, if needs be, ministers can be housed in offices spread around Valletta (much like lawyers’ offices) from which they would presumably run in the event of a quorum call.

The two parties at present in the House each have huge media organisations and big HQs. What they do not have, but should have, is a parliament building that is truly a House. A House of the people. Where people are invited to enter, to listen, to contribute as well. A House where Members can meet their constituents in comfort, where meetings can be held involving civil society, where Members can find adequate resources, such as a decent library, internet access, with offices where assistants can do their work and help the Members. If the Members themselves do not have a high opinion of their work, how can they expect it of the country?

Whether this new parliament building should be on the Opera House site or, for instance, in Lower St Elmo, is not as important as that the new building must be a structure of which all Malta should be proud, a monument of Malta’s newer stature not just as an independent nation, a republic, a member of the EU but also a monument to a new era of relations between the parties.

That is why, in our opinion, no decision can be seriously taken on a new parliament building without the full consent of the Opposition. This must not mean that the Opposition should be given the power of veto, but neither that the government has the right to ride roughshod over the Opposition and the country at large.

Meanwhile, while all these issues are tackled, let Signor Piano do his work. At least, this time around, there is no serious controversy regarding his international fame. And, if memory serves us well, 20 years ago the issue was rather about the gate or the bridge than about the building on the Opera House site. This time it seems more about the Opera House site than about the bridge – at least until the Piano plans are revealed.