The talk has been on constitutional reform with the usual controversies about who and how to bell the cat: who should initiate the reform of the Constitution, who should be the lead actor, what kind of constitutional reform we want, to what extent do we feel the 1964 Constitution needs to be reformed - all the usual controversies that are trotted out, especially in lean times for news.

And, lo and behold, last week our much ill-treated House of Representatives began, without any fanfare at all, to discuss a Bill with constitutional implications that will amend the Constitution, and wonder of wonders, there is already full agreement between the parties thus assuring of a unanimous vote when the time comes.

Obviously, on a national stage where other issues hog the limelight, this has passed by completely unnoticed. The speeches went mostly unreported, even though some of them were quite memorable in the circumstances.

Parliament itself does not go about proclaiming what it is doing, as though this is was something to be ashamed of.

In this absence, I will try and give my ha'penny-worth.

In the last few months we have been seeing Parliament coming more and more into its own. Whatever many thought about the Renzo Piano creation, the fact is that today Parliament - or, to give it its proper name, the House of Representatives - has its own house; for the first time since 1921. It is no longer a lodger in the Palace of the President, forced to share space and services with the President's requirements.

I believe it was last May when, led by Speaker Anglu Farrugia, the Members took that walk on a hot, sunny afternoon (facing the sun, as anyone who walks in Republic Street in the afternoon well knows), they were making a transition that was more important than it looked.

Since then, the Members have taken to the House - even though I feel it is rather claustrophobic. They have more or less become used to being seen all the time on TV and, from what I hear, have discovered new watering holes in the area as substitution for the likes of Caffe Cordina.

Now, unobtrusively and without the usual banging of drums, they have come up with another innovation: Parliament will become autonomous in its administration of funds.

Hitherto, the Speaker had to go cap in hand to the Finance Minister to justify any small expenditure. Henceforth, the House will be its own manager: it will have funds coming to it directly and will autonomously manage those funds. It can hire people, even own property, and all its expenditure will be vetted by professional auditors.

Maybe people will think this is a small reform and does not go far enough; maybe. But this reform will change Parliament from being a government department to being autonomous.

There may be other innovations in the Bill, but the above were the salient points as I listened to the House in session.

There were some notable speeches - from Deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech, lawyers from both sides such as Mario de Marco and Jose Herrera, and the two whips.

As I said earlier, the bill now being discussed will entail amendments to the Constitution and the two parties have already given their consent.

This is what I call a gradual approach, rather than a whole-scale reform of the Constitution that would probably never obtain the consent of the two sides. Or rather, there may be time for an overhaul of the Constitution, beginning with the part dealing with religion, to so many other parts, but the two parties must have felt that the time is not ripe for such a change.

At ground level, this signifies changes that may not mean much to the man in the street but will mean a lot to the people involved. The employees of the House will no longer be part of the Civil Service but will be employed directly by the House. Where previously the House was backed by the Finance Ministry, which took care of its accounts and needs, this will now be done in-house, thus with greater accountability. Where previously approval for trips abroad needed to be obtained from the Ministry, this will now require the assent of the Speaker - hence greater responsibility is required.

We all know the scandals that have arisen in parliaments such as the House of Commons and the Italian Parliament over expenses paid to Members without anyone properly checking what was going on. It would be a great pity if this additional autonomy that our House has gained for itself allows greater ease for fraud and expenditure by its Members. Greater autonomy must be reinforced with greater scrutiny of every item of expense involved.

At the same time, we must also understand that a Parliament that respects itself must have access to more substantial funds than the meagre sums allowed to it by the heirs to the British Civil Service. For example, this reform allows for the recruitment of more aides to help in the parliamentary business. Over the years we have seen how committees have proliferated (and there are still not enough to cope with the workload). Many times in recent months I have watched and seen the stress tell on the part-time MPs as they juggled life, work and House business, rushing from one committee to another.

With Parliament now at City Gate, I thought there would be a greater awareness on the part of the people of what is going on. Although there have been innovations such as exhibitions and all sorts of meetings held in the Chamber (something that was rare, if not frowned upon, in the old Chamber) and open houses and the like, the House has not yet become the House of the People as it should be.

What it maybe lacks is a decent place where Members can meet the public, because the space in the new House has been taken up by ministers' offices and committee rooms. I had protested about this when it was being planned.

However, the bill now being discussed by the House is a move in the right direction. It is gradualist, one step at a time, and keeps the momentum going. Maybe it is not as dramatic as some would have wished, but the important thing is that it is being done in full accord between the two parties.

The House struggled to get the Constitution changed and Malta turned into a Republic, and that had to come about through a split (which was never really healed) in the Opposition Nationalist Party.

Successive changes were made under the pressure of events. This is one change that is being made under no pressure at all and with everybody in favour.

[email protected]