Would it not have been more in the national interest had the government been more open and transparent over its dealings with the company entrusted with the running of three hospitals? Had it done so, the company, Vitals Global Healthcare, would have had a better chance than now of enmeshing itself within the Maltese environment smoothly and win the confidence of all, not just of the government, as it had undoubtedly wished.

However, mainly as a result of the government’s questionable stand of keeping too many cards close too its chest, VGH now has a harder task to convince the people that it is up to the task of undertaking what it has been contracted to do by the government under a 30-year concession.

There have been innumerable twists and turns in what has turned out to be a full-blown saga, but the government MPs’ stand against allowing Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee to investigate the contracts on grounds that it had already been agreed that these were to be reviewed by the Health Parliamentary Committee is indicative of an attitude that creates doubts, rather than confidence, in the project.

In fact, the government is showing itself to be its own worst enemy, a pitiful state that may well be due to incompetence but which could lead, as it is in fact happening, to suppositions, claims, and doubts.

There is no justifiable reason why the Public Accounts Committee should not review the contracts, as requested by two trade unions that have a direct interest in the project, the Medical Association of Malta and Union Ħaddiema Magħqudin. The contrary is the case.

While there may also be a case for the project to be reviewed by the health committee, in so far as the medical arrangements are concerned, the right body to go into the financial aspects of the project is indubitably the Public Accounts Committee, which should have at its disposal copies of the full, not heavily redacted, contracts, as published by the government to the disappointment of all who expected the administration to abide by its commitment for full transparency.

The privatisation of the three hospitals is not a light matter, but a move of national importance. Which is also why it is so important that the Auditor General reviews the contracts. It was not until December 4 that the government finally bowed to pressure and asked the Public Accounts Committee to call on the Auditor General to scrutinise the “full” public-private partnership contracts.

The Auditor General is being asked to see if the contracts represent good value for money; if the building and introduction of new facilities would see an improvement in the health service; if the deals would yield an economic benefit for the country; if the working conditions and rights of the employees would be respected, and if the government would continue to have an effective regulatory role.

These are all very important issues but an equally important one is if VGH is financially strong enough and competent to oversee a project of this magnitude considering that it is the first of its nature it is undertaking.

It is also most disappointing that, according to an audit office’s spokesman, the investigation over the three contracts has to be carried out following the completion of other investigations that are now in line at the office. According to the spokesman, they have to deal with some four other open investigations first. This is not good enough. Considering the importance of the privatisation project, the audit office should prioritise its work.