A number of crucial issues have been raised by the recent incident in which an AFM emergency helicopter, which had been called out urgently to evacuate a patient from Gozo to Mater Dei, was unable to use the helipad at St Luke’s Hospital as it had been blocked illegally by a car parked there. These issues are not just medical.

The government has ordered a magisterial inquiry which will no doubt pronounce on the medical consequences, as well as all the other sins of commission and omission which this unhappy incident gives rise to.

Magisterial inquiries in Malta are not famous for their speed of response. But given that future lives may be at stake and the clear irresponsibility that led to the helipad being rendered unusable through the thoughtlessness of a car driver, it must be hoped that the magistrate will not be long in pronouncing a verdict and making clear recommendations to prevent a future occurrence.

There are a wide range of issues at stake. The first is to do with health, safety and security in all their manifestations. The helipad exists by definition to deal with emergencies. Helicopters are only used to airlift medical emergencies either within Malta (say an air/sea rescue) or between Gozo and Malta if a Gozitan patient has to be transported to Malta urgently. The health and safety of individuals are at stake each time such an incident occurs.

But coupled with health and safety is security. It beggars belief that a hospital helipad can be left so unguarded and unsecured as to allow a driver to use it to park his car there. This raises two immediate questions: who was responsible for ensuring the security of the site; and what steps were in place to ensure lawless drivers did not occupy the helipad?

In a typical Maltese case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, the “authorities” have erected metal bollards and a metal chain many days after the incident that led to the closure of the helipad in the first case. The key question now is what manpower security, surveillance cameras and other means will be present to back up the (insubstantial looking) bollards and chain?

But the fundamental question which the magistrate’s inquiry must address is who was responsible for ensuring security at the site? Who is accountable for what happened? Where does the buck stop in this case? Given the experience of other such incidents – especially where government departments are concerned – the chances are high that there were a number of fingers in this pie and that the chain of command was neither clear nor laid down.

This incident – like the recent laying of an illegal road in Comino – is typical of the lawlessness and “anything goes” attitude which lie at the heart of so much of Malta’s conduct of business. It is mostly confined to the government service. But not only. We only have to be reminded of Ħal-Farruġ and the Polidano Brothers to realise this is not so. But the government which speaks of “Malta becoming a centre of excellence in the Mediterranean” fails miserably, time and time again, on the most basic grounds of good administration: clear lines of responsibility and accountability, proper supervision, attention to the basics of health and safety, attention to security and the rule of law.

It must be hoped that the magisterial inquiry will not be long in coming up with answers to what went wrong and makes clear recommendations to avoid a repetition.