Regulatory Bill 'an exercise in futility', says Sant

Labour MP Alfred Sant told Parliament yesterday that the Malta Transport (Regulatory) Authority Bill - which provided for the establishment of an authority responsible for land, sea and air transport - was nothing but "an exercise in futility".

Speaking during the second reading of the Bill, Dr Sant said that experience had shown that in some instances, even the economies of scale claimed by Transport Minister Austin Gatt when introducing the Bill would not be achieved. This applied particularly to the IT sector.

Repeatedly referring to the proposed authority as "the jumbo corporation", Dr Sant asked whether one would succeed to change the transport structure. By what stretch of the imagination could one say that the corporation would lead to an integrated policy when the minister himself had acknowledged that he had not managed to produce one? he asked, adding, "We are illuding ourselves".

It was unclear whether Dr Gatt's technical explanation of the Bill revealed the actual motivation behind it. PL whip Joe Mizzi's more political explanation made more sense.

Dr Sant said it did not make sense to present a jumbo corporation which was a cut-and-paste of the ADT, the MMA and the DCA. This could explain the reluctance of MPs to engage in this debate, which was an exercise in futility.

Dr Gatt had admitted that after 15 months, he still found problems coordinating the three entities due to their different structures. To solve this problem the three were to be integrated. Was this really the problem, Dr Sant asked, or was it rather a matter of incompetence? Even the minister had admitted that the three structures would remain practically identical.

Dr Sant felt this was actually an issue of incompetence, as any ministry worth its salt had various structures within its competence. Based on this argument, perhaps a jumbo corporation should be created amalgamating all government departments under the direction of the Prime Minister.

The minister had mentioned that within the EU, transport had always been considered as a unified concept. But Dr Sant questioned what logic led Malta to blindly imitate other countries, such as France and the UK. Speaking of economies of scale, Dr Gatt had said that uniting the three services would help rein in expenditure. Experience had shown this was not the case, as the field of IT, particularly, did not show any uniformity.

This corporation would be one of the largest in the public service system, but nobody had mentioned that just a short while ago, a law had been passed to create a framework for this service. Names and terminologies which should not have been used, due to the new legislation, had been mentioned.

In the past the clear distinction between the regulatory and the executive concepts of government entities had been emphasised. This logic made sense, Dr Sant said, and he would have expected this to be mentioned.

The title of the Bill said "regulatory authority", which gave a clear indication of the authority's function. But the authority would also have apparent executive functions when it came to ports and roads, for example. This would make for increased confusion.

The Financial Services Authority, he said, had this same problem between regulating, and at the same time promoting, financial services.

If Minister Gatt was incapable, he should resign.

Dr Sant said Malta Enterprise lacked leadership and vision. He also criticised the amalgamation of the planning authority and the environment department with executive functions tied to the regulatory ones. This had led to serious mistakes over the last two years, as evidenced by environmentalists.

Another example was in education, with schools merged in colleges. Heads of schools and teachers mentioned the lack of vision and coordination and the waste of resources.

Dr Sant said one would not indulge in the political game when input through taxpayers' money should lead to an output of maximum efficiency. Ministries should coordinate and not set up structures to act as a screen.

Putting these different authorities under one umbrella would lead to less transparency and lack of accountability. A case in point was the ADT, which over the years had shown serious lack of accountability. The board regulating the ADT would now also be responsible for the regulatory functions of two other entities.

Dr Sant concluded that the Bill was contrary to the Public Service Act and was "a technical lie".

Winding up the debate, Parliamentary Secretary Clyde Puli said Malta had benefited from the siphoning off of various authorities from government departments. In setting up the transport authority, the government was recognising that as things had evolved by time the separate bodies' responsibilities had changed too.

Dr Sant's example of Mitts was a bad example because it was a way to provide a better service, rather than an amalgamation. In education the colleges system was still evolving.

On the question of size, the amalgamation of transport sectors should not be seen as creating a mammoth organisation. Enemalta, for example, employed four times the workforce that the new transport authority would.

The Bill foresaw the creation of new services, leaving the authority to be more regulatory than anything else. The government was not going away from its concept of shunning total control of any essential service.

Mr Puli said the consolidation would make for a stronger, more coherent regulator. There was no denying the problems that had been encountered with the existent set-up over past years. But neither was there any denying that economies of scale in the sole authority would in fact make for greater efficiency and cost savings, including the coordination of information technology and management and the fact that each sector would have a directorate responding to a sole head.

The new authority would be in a position to carry out government policies in good time and effectively. The implementation of policies had often been a stumbling block in the past. Another important aspect would be enforcement, which must be effective.

The new authority would serve to build up a nucleus of transport professionals with career progression opportunities.

Concluding, Mr Puli said the Bill's real effectiveness could only be gauged by the passage of time.

Earlier, Ċensu Galea (PN) said that today's social reality required change in the transport sector: society had to realise that transport was a tool in the hands of those who needed transport. The Bill would affect society differently.

With regard to the Merchandising Directorate, which is also in charge of registering ships under the Maltese flag, Malta had to make sure that it observed EU and IMO rules. Malta had a responsibility which went beyond local responsibility. With hard work, Malta had started to attract more ship registrations. The same could be said of aircraft.

He referred to the lack of personnel within the Enforcement Directorate, where ship and aircraft registers had to be checked by qualified individuals.

Having only one international airport, Mr Galea said, put a heavier burden on the country. He referred to a situation in 1998 where the US were considering the Maltese airport in category three.

The new authority would absorb two authorities and the civil aviation department, leading to better administration. It should provide adequate regulations followed up with regular updates. In the meantime it should be the government which should establish policy guidelines.

Mr Galea said that with serious efforts and good implementation, the Bill would lead to a better situation than at present.

On Monday, opposition spokes-man on the infrastructure Charles Buhagiar said transport was of strategic importance to Malta and one had to ensure a transport strategy that connected the islands holistically to the European mainland, achieving better economic gain for Malta.

Malta's main ports were underutilised and many harbour areas were in a desolate state. There were parts of the Grand Harbour which were inaccessible because of shipping wrecks. Before the general elections, both political parties had made valid proposals on the regeneration of the harbour area, but the government needed to put its plans into action.

Mr Buhagiar said it was ironical that the Drydocks' privatisation process was taking so long. Many skilled workers were finding other jobs and it would be difficult for a new operator to find experienced workers for ship and yacht repairs. The Drydocks represented the backup facilities of Malta's ports.

There was also a problem with land transport, where the island had the highest density of private cars per kilometre of roads in the world. It was difficult to change the car culture and incentivise people to use public transport. The public transport sector had not developed in line with demographic changes, with people living away from town centres. Over the years the number of public transport users had declined drastically, making the service unsustainable and forcing the government to increase its subsidy.

Mr Buhagiar proposed that areas of high population density such as the harbour areas could be served through ferry services. These services had to be integrated with means of land transport similar to the park-and-ride system.

He also said that the refurbishment of St George's and Freedom Squares in Valletta would decrease the amount of parking space by about 500 car spaces, and an underground car park in Valletta should therefore be considered to avoid a slump in business and in the number of people commuting to the capital.

One also had to consider where the horse-drawn cabs terminal would be relocated. On traffic management he said the setting up of a directorate for this purpose was a step in the right direction. He hoped that this would solve current problems.

It was important to have one authority to set up comprehensive plans for all modes of transport. But one had to focus on shortcomings and on improving the economy and quality of life.

The Bill was unanimously approved.