Only eight years after its official inauguration, Mater Dei is again mired in controversy and doubt. We now know that the uneasy suspicions that grew, fungus-like, for the entire time the hospital was a work in progress, were – shall we say – ‘concretely’ founded. This is the only concrete certainty that exists in the wake of the latest scandalous revelations.
Mater Dei was the hospital ordained from the political on-high of the Nationalist Party to be Malta’s bid for state-of-the-art State medicine. The taxpayer was eventually required to pick up a tab for €600 million (more than double the original estimate of about €250 million).
The Mater Dei building saga dominated much of my adult life. I went from university student to law graduate, became a mother and eventually started writing for this newspaper. The on and off construction of this hospital spanned the course of 20 years and was a backdrop to all of these personal milestones.
There was always a looming sense that Mater Dei was bad news waiting to happen, or good news destined not to happen. I seem to recall traffic incidents and fatalities which occurred on – or very close to – the building site. It felt that this was a hospital being built on the never-never in a continuum of never-ending time. What we didn’t know then was that the hospital would never-never be what it was cracked up to be.
A value-for-money hospital – however long coming – would have made the financial commitment bearable. A year ago, when the Labour government attempted to build another floor above the Accident and Emergency Department, structural tests revealed that the concrete strength of much of the hospital was well below the specifications which had been contracted and commissioned.
Using inferior watered down concrete is probably the oldest trick in the trade and must happen frequently in the sleazy world that is the construction industry. But when you’re talking about medical care at the highest level of a State hospital, the very idea of skimping on (or compromising on) the exact formula is beyond belief.
And of course the thought of paying double for something which is estimated to have cost less than half of what was paid – and which falls below the agreed standards of quality – is a very bitter pill to swallow. One wonders whether we’re still paying for this hospital in some shape or form – servicing bank loans with hefty interest rates on top.
The big question on everyone’s mind – and it’s one that needs to be answered – is how could this have come about? At what level did it occur? At the highest level of government? At Skanska level? Both?
And if it didn’t occur immediately at institutional level but at some sub-contractual level instead, there’s no knowing what goings-on were off Skanska’s or the government’s radar. Yet one still assumes that the sub-contractual level is subject to checks and balances and the overall supervision of the contracting company.
There was always a looming sense that Mater Dei was bad news waiting to happen, or good news destined not to happen
Could the jiggery pokery have occurred much lower down – at say lorry-driver level? Could the concrete mixer which was destined for Mater Dei have turned left instead of right? Could the good quality concrete have been delivered and deposited elsewhere? Have we, the taxpayer, financed a prestigious privately owned block of flats, someone else’s house, or the Nationalist Party headquarters? These are suddenly legitimate questions which will have to be answered.
Of all the scandals to have emerged under any government’s watch (and there have been many), this really is the mother – or should I say mater? – of all scandals.
To dare to compromise healthcare so blatantly takes political malpractice to a wholly new level. It was, in fact, very refreshing to hear health shadow minister Claudette Pace on Reporter unreservedly condemn the matter and express her profound concern about the future of both political classes.
Perhaps this is the Maltese time-bomb that finally had to go off, blasting away the old political elites with their shabby pre-election deals and vested commercial interests.
There are some who, in the face of all this, choose to call the scandal a mud-slinging deflective exercise by the Labour Party. I can assure these people that I don’t suffer any attention deficit disorder. I’m perfectly capable of recognising corruption and sleaze for what it is while still remembering that I don’t want a university built on ODZ land.
How interesting though that while Skanska’s credentials were never questioned and while the blonde, blue-eyed Swedes did not arouse suspicion, the Sadeen Group were immediately written off as suspicious.
That is neither here nor there, perhaps. We have always placed an overwhelming trust in larger European countries which may not have entirely deserved that trust.
What I do hope is this will herald in a new order of doing politics. There have got to be consequences this time round. Heads have got to roll, people have got to be held accountable.
There’s a lesson here to all our politicians: that political parties, like houseguests, can’t outstay their welcome. With political parties two terms is perfectly sufficient, three is plenty and anything over that stinks.
Moreover, a government that chooses to inherit and perpetuate a failed government’s mistakes, giving refuge and support to its discards and dregs, will end up with sleaze on its hands.
The political class has got to change, if for no other reason because the audience has changed. There’s a more sensible younger generation in town these days, and these guys are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves.
As a gentleman I enjoy shooting the breeze with told me: “Today, floating voters have given way to thinking voters.” He’s right. This audience can’t be fooled. We need a new political class which will finally rid this put-upon island of all its nonsense, one which is ready to preserve this island’s true patrimony.
michelaspiteri@gmail.com