One of the good things about the EU is that there are standards which have to be observed. In the short run high standards are naturally more demanding but in the long run they tend to benefit all of us who are bound by them.
Take the recent case of the gas cylinders. Enemalta has said that even though the cylinders are sub-standard they pose no danger to users. Still, not only do tests establish that these cylinders, although not unsafe, are not up to the standards established by EU directives but they do not even meet the criteria set down in the contract with the supplier.
Somebody has to be accountable for the error and Enemalta has suspended three employees who had formed part of the selection board that had opted for this batch, accusing them of gross negligence. An internal investigation is being carried out and the ministry has asked the National Audit Office to investigate.
Fortunately, eyes have been opened quite quickly and a corrective has been applied. The error or negligence is definitely serious but not to the extent of posing threats.
The public has a right to know what has gone wrong. On its part, the ministry said Enemalta had bought 30,000 of these cylinders of which 24,000 were in circulation. When you consider that there are 550,000 cylinders in circulation, this amounts to only a small fraction.
In order to allay fears, Enemalta said households could continue to use cylinders that were already being used and they would be collected in the usual manner. These cylinders are recognisable from the red Enemalta insignia on the side.
We may have to suffer shortages until the new consignment arrives because most of the spares belong to the wrong category but vouchers will be given when an empty-cylinder cannot be replaced - to be used when buying a new one later on.
The Investments Ministry spoke about a preliminary investigation which showed some allegedly suspect elements existing in areas where one would not expect them, both in the deal itself and in the quality of the cylinders. Calls for tenders had been prepared in June 2002. Specifications then had been vague and unclear. A call for tenders was issued in November that year. The initial evaluation was made by a purposely set-up selection board that included three Enemalta officials, one of whom was the author of the document of the call for tenders.
Among other details, it was revealed that at one stage, later on when ordering a new batch, Malta Shipyards tests were carried out for Enemalta. These "destructible tests" showed that the cylinder quality levels were below those agreed upon, even though this did not render them unsafe.
To complicate matters further, when, in August 2004, Enemalta identified, following another call for tenders, a new contractor from whom to buy its cylinders, the old contractor who had sold it the batch which was currently being withdrawn had filed an appeal before the Contracts Department, thus holding up proceedings.
One is thankful for careful testing all along of delicate and potentially hazardous material. One also hopes red tape will not hold up the ordering of new cylinders. Finally, one augurs this was a one-off shortcoming and that all necessary safeguards are put in place, at Enemalta and elsewhere, to avoid a repetition.