Above the hoardings at City Gate, the pillars for the new Parliament building (otherwise called ‘the stilts’ by wags) are visible.

To them have now been added huge steel beams.

I was told, and I reported it inn this paper some time ago, that the skeleton for the new Parliament building (which is in turn two buildings, the House proper and the offices) will be made of steel, which is being cut and prepared in a very interesting and modern way in north Italy and then shipped over and assembled.

My point today is that it is high time that the parties start talks on how they will be using the new building, utilizing the opportunities it offers and also creating added value to the House of Representatives so that moving to the new site will also mean, hopefully, that the House becomes more and more the ‘house of the people’, especially in its new setting at the entrance to the capital, the first time that the House will have its own house instead of being a tenant in the ‘house’ of the President.

There is so much to discuss and so much to do.

I doubt if the plans for the House have been shown in detail to the Speaker and to representatives of the two sides. I doubt if MPs have been offered a chance to give their input as regards what they would like both in the Hall and in their offices. Will they, for instance, each have his/her seat as they do in the present Hall, or will they have the House of Commons configuration that if they all turn up, they have to stand? The former makes for lots of empty space while the latter gives a better feel on the really important sittings.

Already, from the plans that have been made public, the House will change from its present ‘House of Commons’ format to what looks like an octagonal setting, rather on the Bundestag mode. Was the House consulted on this change? Will it also involve switching to the other Bundestag mode where each speaker has to go up to the podium to speak?

There is much more to discuss and to suggest. As an instance of what can happen when this mode of procedure is not followed, the present House of Representatives offers a very good example.

It has a committee room that is still brand new but which has been barely used. This room is downstairs in what used to be the linotype room in Archbishop’s Street corner with Merchants Street. The reason it has very rarely been used is that Members have to go down to the ground floor, cross the courtyard (and it is also rather stuffy), but if they are needed in the House, such as when a division is called, they would not make it in the time allowed. At least that was the reason I was given.

In its present setting, the House uses three rooms for its committee meetings. One room is next to the Pages’ Room. Its ceiling has the first cycle of Matteo Perez d’Aleccio murals on the early history of the Order. Unfortunately, since this room is considered to be part of Parliament, it is not open to visitors, so they miss out on an important part of the cycle. This is the room filled with portraits of 18th century Popes.

Next door to it is the former Grand Master’s bedroom, which, up to some time ago, was used mostly for House Business Committee meetings (with the media squeezed in the space where the Grand Master’s bed used to be).

The House Business Committee nowadays has taken to meet in what used to be the Grand Master’s private chapel, called the Palladini chapel from the frescoes that have only recently been restored to its glowing colours. There, somewhat incongruously, the debate was held on how the divorce motion would be discussed by the House.

You would not recognise this room from the Palace corridor for it is instead marked as ‘The Prince of Wales Room’ because a Prince of Wales once spent a night there.

There are other location issues to consider, such as the location of offices and how are they going to be equipped. One assumes the entire building will have Wi-Fi.

There is an issue with what is going to be at ground floor. At one point, it was said that a sort of museum of political history will be set up, but later the space seems to have been left empty providing a walk-through from Castille to City Gate.

There are also one or two levels of underground space and also a sunken garden at the foot of St John’s massive Cavalier. And also a restaurant on the railway bridge leading to what we used to know as the Yellow Garage. There, it would seem, will be space where citizens can meet their MPs.

MPs will want to know the security features of the new buildings and perhaps they would want to have a hand in stating what they would want and how it will be implemented.

At a recent House Business Committee meeting, Opposition Whip Joe Mizzi complained there is next to no security in today’s House and people seem to wander in at will. Then, as things usually get done, they started to ask for ID Cards at the door, although, again, this lapsed after a while.

The radio broadcasting of the House sittings and the streamed broadcasts of the committee meetings are quite helpful but they may also have removed the need for people to actually go and listen to the speeches. This has turned the House into an empty tomb where Members speak to no one in particular and the House is normally somnolently empty.

I have often proposed a dedicated TV channel, or perhaps TV streaming but am afraid the Members will not allow this as it would show how empty the House is on a normal basis and that would continue to undermine the respect people should have for their representatives.

My inspiration came from a short visit we had once paid to the Parliament of The Netherlands. The dedicated television channel is not just for the broadcasting of sittings but also offers a more comfortable setting for the holding of committee hearings, which are many times quite interesting as they touch on a variety of issues that matter to people.

Here in Malta, the sittings of the Social Affairs Committee and also, on another level, that of the Foreign Affairs Committee, are many times completely unreported by the media whereas the sittings of the Public Accounts Committee are only reported when a clash takes place. People here many times are even unaware that the committee meetings are streamed online. But if, for instance, the Social Affairs Committee were to tackle (as it does) really important issues and to take its time to discuss the various aspects of a question, that would really call for a televised sitting.

So this is basically a call for MPs to discuss how the House can function in its new building. Maybe the time is ripe for the two sides to come together to discuss, as Speaker after Speaker have long been urging, how to remove outdated parts of the rules, and to make the House work far better at its all-important role.

To hope that agreement can be reached on such matters a year and a half from the next election is hopelessly optimistic, I know, especially after the latest scandal where a salary increase meant for all MPs was suddenly given to ministers only and then secretly.

It would be pointless to go to such an expense of building a new House if the old practices are to be relocated as well.

[email protected]