Editorial

It is with dismay and increasing anger that one reads the Auditor-General's report tabled in Parliament on the state of vehicle emissions testing and control in Malta. The Auditor General has reported, inter alia, that no vehicles were summoned by the Malta Transport Authority for emissions testing since last year. This, despite a campaign that was widely welcomed by the public when it was first launched some three years ago to send the ADT an SMS with the vehicle's number if it seemed to be emitting noxious fumes.

The public now learns that, despite sending more than 70,000 messages since 2008, it was conned by the ADT into doing this because it was unable to follow up effectively on the reports it received. "Its testing capacity was unable to cope", the VRT stations conducting tests "in accordance with the prescribed regulations were not fully adequate", "the RETs (roadside emissions tests) were suspended in 2008 as the ADT sought to limit the conduct of emissions testing to certified testers" and "the control framework should be reviewed to ascertain that the relevant schemes are not piecemeal or incremental but designed as part of a holistic and comprehensive strategy aimed at tackling excessive vehicle emissions".

Vehicle emissions are a major source of air pollution. Both public health and the environment are severely adversely affected by them. According to a report by the Today Public Policy Institute, Towards A Low Carbon Economy: The Nation's Health, Energy Security And Fossil Fuels, there is convincing scientific evidence that living near a major road is associated with increases in the incidence of asthma attacks and the risk of lung cancer. Riding in a car offers little or no protection against pollutants generated by traffic. Motorists and passengers in cars are at an even higher risk from exhaust fumes.

The Auditor General's report to Parliament has exposed starkly the irresponsibility of the ADT for failing to protect the public's health from the effects of poisonous transport pollution. And all the ADT could say was that it did not carry out any tests as it was working on a new automated system to filter incoming information! Does it honestly expect the public to cooperate now? Who will answer for this serious shortcoming?

For the public, who joined in the emissions scheme in good faith on the assumption that there would be adequate follow-up to their SMS reports and in the fervent hope that the toxic fumes to which they were being subjected by the offending vehicles would be reduced, this has been an exercise in futility. Did the minister responsible know that the ADT was unable to do the job it had been asked to do? Did he condone its inaction, or was he conned too by an organisation that has become notorious for its maladministration in recent years? Either way, the public deserves some answers. Hopefully, there will be a parliamentary debate on the issue when the House sits again after the summer recess.

How often has it been stated that enforcement of the law is crucial to the protection of the environment? The Auditor General's report has demonstrated again how enforcement is notable by its absence. For enforcement to work effectively, two essential ingredients must be present. First, there must be the political will to implement it. And, secondly, there must be a sufficient number of enforcement officers deployed and available to cope with the task. This report shows clearly that both these requirements were lacking in this case.