Transport Minister Austin Gatt told Parliament yesterday that the government believed there was a future for public transport. A collective will could yet give the country an integrated transport system, with less polluting vehicles, at prices that would be more than reasonable.

He was closing the debate on the motion for the House to approve the Public Transport Authority's financial estimates for 2009.

Dr Gatt said that Malta was one of the most motorised countries, with 540 cars for every 1,000 persons. Pollution generated from transport was second only to that emitted by the energy sector.

The authority was responsible for the licensing of cars and drivers, including commercial operators. It was also responsible for the construction of roads, the management of traffic and the regulation of public transport, including taxis and mini-buses. The minister called for interplay with local councils because they, too, were involved in regulation.

The government was proposing a budget which was €2 million less than that of last year: €0.5 million less in operational costs and €1.5 million less on salaries of employees who had retired or those who had been seconded to the ADT but whom the government had taken back.

He said the authority was trying to automate its processes and provide an efficient service.

Opposition spokesman Joe Mizzi said the government was using the ADT as another mechanism for generating revenue without giving anything back to the citizen.

Through the ADT the government had an annual revenue of more than €90 million from licences and traffic fines, including speed cameras. It was estimated that next year the authority would collect €750,000 from speed camera fines alone.

The authority spent less than €2.5 million on road maintenance, excluding roads funded through the EU cohesion funds. The government was giving the authority €5 million for operational costs, leaving a balance of €85 million in revenue.

Mr Mizzi claimed that like other government agencies or departments, the ADT was tainted with corruption. It had even absolved employees after the courts had found them guilty of corruption.

He accused the ADT that the only qualification certain directors had was that of discriminating against certain employees and certain companies while favouring those that had the PN at heart.

Referring to the authority's cost-cutting exercise, he said this did not affect professional costs, which next year were to amount to €1.2 million. He asked whether these fees were to be given to friends of friends. Mr Mizzi said that over the last 20 years transport had yielded more than €1 billion to the government, which was more than the public borrowing requirements over the same period.

Before the European Parliament elections, the government had hidden the transport reform which would cost the people €45 million more. Besides paying for licences, insurance and maintenance costs, vehicle owners had to pay for extra fuel consumption due to traffic congestion and lack of road maintenance.

He accused the government of not telling the truth to transport operators before the elections when it knew that a large number of buses and coaches would have to be phased out because they did not conform to EU standards. Such standards were to apply also to passenger cars, merchandise vehicles, construction transport, bowsers and heavy plant machinery.

Mr Mizzi accused the minister of lying to the Public Transport Association that the EU had not accepted it as an SME. He challenged the minister to put the relevant correspondence on the table of the House.

Interjecting, Minister Gatt denied having ever said so to the association.

Continuing, Mr Mizzi said that the association was saying otherwise. As SMEs, bus owners were to benefit from EU funds to make their buses conform to EU standards. These buses would have been better than those to be provided by the future operator in the sector.

The government had funds to move the transport reform forward but lost those funds under the SME scheme. He asked why the government had never shown interest to subsidise public transport when the EU considered the sector as one of general interest.

Mr Mizzi questioned how the tender did not have environmental specifications based on acceptable EU standards. Utility tariffs had been raised with the excuse of fulfilling the emissions directive, but it was common knowledge that transport was one of the main pollutants.

People were weighed down by taxes and tariffs, and the situation would become worse when the price of oil soared again, as it was certain it would, by between US$80 and US$100 per barrel.

Transport was the most important sector in Malta, both as a service for tourism, for the sale of vehicles and for the livelihood of people such as panel beaters and mechanics.

When had the catalytic converter been introduced in Malta, and how many cars had been fitted with one? What percentage of car owners had been taken to court for emission of toxic gases? What efforts had been made to introduce more environmentally-friendly fuels, such as bio-fuels? Mr Mizzi said the answers to these questions were proof of the authority's incompetence.

Concluding, he said the only viable path was for the Nationalist government to resign, so that the country could be given a new lease of life.

Franco Debono (PN) objected to what he called Mr Mizzi's anachronistic adjectives used against Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and his way of governing. He praised Dr Gonzi for his courage in carrying out reform and not abdicating his responsibilities in the present global climate. It was not right for Mr Mizzi to foment such uncertainties.

Dr Debono devoted much of his speech to the state of Valletta Road in Żurrieq, an arterial road leading to Ħaġar Qim and Mnadjra which had touristic potential.

He noted, however, that now, partly through EU funds, infrastructural development would soon be carried out on this road, stretching some two kilometres from ST Microelectronics to the Żurrieq roundabout.

Labour MP Charles Buhagiar said that the authority's report was poor not only in its presentation but also in its contents.

One of the ADT's most important directorates was the Roads Directorate, but the authority's annual report devoted only one-and-a-half pages to it. Such a poor report reflected the state of Malta's roads because there was simply nothing to report.

On the other hand, this directorate had the biggest chunk of the authority's budget with a capital expenditure for roads for 2009 earmarked at €34,350,000. There were many shortcomings which had been highlighted time and again, but which had not been addressed.

Mr Buhagiar said utility providers - Water Services Corporation, Enemalta Corporation and Go - were the major culprits damaging roads. New residential roads were built and then re-opened by one provider or another. A trench in a newly-built road reduced its use by 40 per cent, even if well resurfaced. It was astonishing how works were not coordinated when most of the utility providers and the ADT fell under one ministry.

Malta still did not have a system to control the heavy vehicles that were damaging the roads.

Rainwater was also a threat: apart from causing flooding, it broke up the roads. Water must be drained off as soon as possible.

Mr Buhagiar said the minister was proposing to issue an international tender to cover all planned roads over a number of years, claiming that this would bring overseas expertise to road building. Malta had already passed through this phase but overseas contractors who won the tender had sub-contracted to local contractors.

The Labour MP emphasised that the ADT must enforce its regulatory role to ensure the quality of roads, even those built by local councils, by setting standards.

He called on the authority to see to repairs of Vjal il-Ħelsien in Żebbuġ, through which traffic was deviated during the building of Italian protocol roads. This was heavily damaged but after years of promises it had not been reconstructed.

Mr Buhagiar said the ADT had to give due importance to traffic management, which was as important as the construction of roads. He mentioned serious traffic management problems in Attard because of traffic congestion at all times. The traffic management unit was revamped but it had to be given more resources to carry out its work efficiently.

The government had to reconsider the CVA system in Valletta because it had failed in all its objectives. CO2 emissions had not decreased, more traffic was entering Valletta and one would not find parking space in mid-morning.

The system had also failed to finance the operations of the Park and Ride system. The minister should see whether the late payment fee charged by the CVA was legal when this was more than the actual sum to be paid for being in Valletta.

Mr Buhagiar said it was high time that a system of public transport by sea was created, as more than a third of the Maltese population lived in port areas. A problem was the lack of car parks available at ferry areas, so that people could park and take the ferry. He suggested building car parks on the periphery of each area, and employing a system similar to the park and ride to transfer people to the ferry. Mr Buhagiar said that he was convinced that such a system would work.

Winding up the debate, Minister Gatt said he was disappointed by incorrect statements uttered by Mr Mizzi. It was untrue to say that before the election, the government had promised a sunny aftermath. Rather, the slogan of a steady pair of hands was because they predicted a time of crisis. This was why the PN had won, because people believed in Dr Gonzi offering the steadiest pair of hands.

Dr Gatt disagreed with the exceedingly-conservative stance taken by Mr Mizzi, who seemed to believe that Malta was drawing to a standstill as the whole world progressed. Mr Mizzi corrected this impression, and Dr Gatt said he was pleased the opposition agreed on this, even if they had different ways of going about it.

The government had never said the market had to be liberalised. Rather, it had stated the obligation to issue a public tender. There was no other EU country which had a monopolistic system.

The system in Malta was more than a monopoly, with more than 400 bus owners. He added that ATP had not said it could not represent the owners, but that they could not understand how the EU did not defend SMEs, and therefore they had the right to.

The fact was that the EU had a specific directive, which imposed that all the countries must use one of three methods of allocating the transport system: nationalise, issue a tender or, in the case of specific contracts, award by direct order. To qualify for direct order there should be a set number of kilometres to be covered, or the value of the tender must be under a set value. This was the case in Gozo, which was why the government had offered Gozo bus owners this option. Since this would result in a loss, they had declined. Malta, on the other hand, did not qualify.

Former Transport Minister Jesmond Mugliett had worked with the ATP to try and find a way how it could qualify. They had suggested a scheme of bringing the 400 owners under 22 different companies.

It had quickly become apparent that while some routes would be profitable, others would not. They had proposed changing routes and sharing profits, but the EU had sent a written refusal of this arrangement, the reason being they could not have administration and finance under one single umbrella. These were the facts, and the ATP even had a copy of this letter.

The rest of the sitting will be reported on Monday.