Transport Minister Austin Gatt spoke in detail today on how the bus service reform unfolded and said the progress made in various areas was simply being ignored. He expressed gratitude for the support he receives every day from the prime minister, ministers and the PN.
Speaking during the debate in Parliament on a no confidence motion in him, Dr Gatt said speeches such as those made by Opposition MPs today confirmed how the PL would stay in Opposition, since it had no ideas for the future.
Dr Gatt went over how the reform process unfolded, including, he said, the historic agreement reached with the bus owners, who were compensated for the bus licences and three years of work. Some people in the opposition, used to ideas such as requisition, were against this agreement. The compensation was equivalent almost to how much Malta would save in subsidies to the bus service over 10 years - €50 million. And at the same time Malta got a new bus fleet and a new service.
Dr Gatt insisted that the government had sought consultation on the bus service. The new bus routes were made public as early as 2009. But the opposition did not say a word. Local councils were handed a CD with the new routes and bus stops, and yet only eight councils replied.
The Cabinet then held six meetings and took the necessary decisions including the terms of the call for tender and the routes and interchanges. These were public but again, the PL ignored them.
An international tender was then issued and won, without controversy, by Arriva, which requested the lower subsidy.
There was noting wrong by the government in any of these stages as otherwise, he was sure, that the Opposition would have objected.
The tender was awarded as part and parcel with the routes, which no one had objected to. The new Valletta terminus was built, other facilities were also built while Arriva bought its buses and started its preparations.
The contract in itself was a milestone for the country. Did anyone know that there was nothing in writing with the former bus operators, other than how much they would be paid in subsidies?
The new contract included maximum waiting times, and the applicable fines for this and other possible shortcomings. There were also provisions on route changes and the fares, among other matters. All this was crucial. Under the old service, no action could be taken for infringements by the operators because there was no contract setting out the obligations. There wasn't even an agreed timetable up to July 3.
The contract with Arriva established the responsibilities of the regulator and the operator. The contract did not specify how many buses were required, but it laid down the maximum waiting times on the various stops. Then it was up to Arriva to decide how many buses, or what sort of buses were needed to meet the contract conditions. And if the conditions were not met, Arriva was liable for fines.
When the contract was being signed Arriva never told him that it could not meet its contract obligations on the various routes, some of which were admittedly very long. Therefore, if the government got it wrong, it was not alone.
He had no doubt, Dr Gatt said, that the interchanges would have been better received had the new service started well. But the service started on the wrong footing when 180 drivers failed to turn up. And he was sure this was not a coincidence.
But the government was not disheartened and ploughed on. Malta now had a bus fleet which did not emit clouds of smoke. Some of the buses were hybrid, but everyone was ignoring this. The average age of the buses was now one year, making this the youngest bus fleet in Europe. The buses were air-conditioned and clean. Didn't all this count for anything?
To replace a third of the old bus to Euro III standards cost €10m and the governemnt would have had to spend some €40m to replace the other buses, besides the subsidies. Now the governemnt was paying just a smaller subsidy. But this too, apparently, did not count for anything. 11% of the old buses were built, incredibly, before 1950.
Malta now had bus drivers who were polite and wore a uniform. Bus stops now had route information and schedules, and a number where one could complain or seek information. Before they only had a sign saying 'fare stage' whatever that meant.
Couldn't anyone see the difference?
The new bus service in Gozo, Dr Gatt said, was a huge success, and it was significant that Labour's Gozitan MPs had not spoken in this debate. He wanted the same success for Malta.
Areas such as Bahrija, Manikata, L-Iklin and Kappara never had a bus service before. Now all localities had a service up to 11 p.m. Before only Sliema and a few other localities had a service until 11.
Now there were airport services to all tourist areas for just €2.60 including luggage. Where could anyone pay so little?
Sure there were problems, but there were now point-to-point links which did not exist before and people had to take two buses.
Wasn't it significant that there were 700 more bus stops than before?
The routes could have been much better, but there was substantial progress in many areas of the bus service.
The last full year subsidy was €9.6m but now €4.7 million would be paid to Arriva in a year and the buses were new. Even if the routes were increased, the subsidy increase would not be anywhere near what was paid to the ATP. But didn't this count for anything?
Fares were more or less what they were before. They were slightly higher in some cases, but sectors such as students were saving €2.50 per week if they used the buses every day, in some cases even more. Wheelchair users did not pay anything.
Dr Gatt said he could not understand the criticism about different fares for foreigners. The different tiers existed in 26 other places in Europe. But after all, a day ticket only cost €2.60. He challenged anyone to find a cheaper rate in Europe. Tourists now paid a cheaper seven-day fare than under the old bus service.
Four months were too short a time to change a 40-year culture, Dr Gatt said. Everyone had wanted to change the old system, people hated it more than the electricity bills. But complaints had flowed in when the new service was introduced - Arriva received 16,400 complaints in three months. But it carried 62,000 passengers every day.
68% of the complaints were about the Arriva service and 18% about the routes.
THE ROUTES
Dr Gatt said he had assumed responsibility for the routes because he appointed the people to work on them. The routes were drafted by a Transport Malta technical team with post graduate degrees in transport planning assisted by Harclow Consultants of the UK, first engaged in Malta on a contract by then minister Jesmond Mugliett. The work was coordinated by his head of secretariat Manuel Delia who was among those who submitted his resignation, which he refused.
Dr Gatt said that it would not have made sense to replace the buses and not the network. The old system had been seeing a consistent decrease in the number of commuters. A travel habits survey had also shown that only half of those people who went to Valletta used the buses. 90% of people who used their cars did not travel to Valletta. Therefore new routes which did not go to Valletta were needed - hence the introduction of the interchanges system.
The ATP could not be engaged as consultants because they were among the competitors for the tender. And there was no option but to introduce the change in one stroke. One could hardly imagine the ATP and Arriva working together.
And in any case, Arriva never said they could not operate the system.
The first criticism of the routes was that they were too long. Actually, 18 of the 71 routes were long, and the councils and the PL never complained about them.
TM then reduced all but one of the routes.
As for the interchanges, Dr Gatt said interchanges always existed unofficially in Malta - at Bombi, Msida and Paola. Now routes would be restored to Valletta, but the interchanges would be retained because there were advantages in that system. Once the system worked well, interchanges served for shorter trips.
He could not understand how the government was being called arrogant for bringing about changes, Dr Gatt said.
He had refused the resignations offered by Mr Delia and the others who drew up the routes because technically they were correct. This was a system which worked everywhere else. That their idea was not welcomed did not mean they had been wrong.
November 6 would see the conclusion of the major changes to the route network and one would then see a period of consolidation, with the focus then being on the quality of service, Dr Gatt said. The subsidy would rise slightly because of the increased routes, but this would be nowhere near the old subsidy.
The emphasis would now be on frequency of service, comfort, timetables and waiting time. MT had its inspectors on the roads and Arriva would be fined of contract conditions were not observed,
Efficiency had been a disaster in July because many drivers did not turn up. But significant progress had been made since. More drivers had been trained and UK drivers temporarily taken on.
The remaining problems for Arriva were punctuality and regularity on each of the 1,900 bus stop every day. So far, it appears that of 71 routes, the problems were on 14 routes. 90% of the problems were between 6 am. and 9.30 a.m. and it appeared likely that more buses would need to be used, and this was what would happen.
The second problem was the ticketing system. At last Arriva had reached agreement with Maltapost and tickets were being sold from all post offices. It was important that tickets were not bought on the buses since this slowed down trips.
Thirdly, the IT system needed to be improved.
Concluding, Dr Gatt said this was the fourth no confidence vote he was facing, along with six censure motions. He had to pilot several radical reforms, sometimes going against the current. It did not mean he ignored criticism. Criticism was welcome as long as it was not personal.
He did not always get everything right, reforms were always a risk, but one should not shirk from making choices. Looking at the bigger picture, he could say that despite his mistakes, the bus reform was working. Unfortunately, the PL used different standards for himself and for itself.
The PL was seeking his resignation. Had Leo Brincat resigned after the CET mess? Had Louis Buhagiar resigned over the electricity bills which he was then forced to stop? Had Michael Farrugia resigned for wanting to introduce a tax on medicine subscriptions?
Surely the same standards should apply for everyone.
Dr Gatt said he was fortified by the support and confidence he received every day from the Prime Minister and the parliamentary group, the PN committees and roots who remained loyal when the going got tough.
He said that although he planned to retire, he would continue to militate within the PN throughout his life for the party to stay in office.