Infrastructure, Transport and Communications Minister Austin Gatt has issued two policy directives over the past weeks, the first urging the Malta Transport Authority to pull its socks up with regard to car park attendants and, a few days later, to call for an independent testing of roads contracted for construction by the ADT.
The directives concerning car park attendants was long overdue, as the way the system operated led to abuse the minister himself indicated in the statement issued. For one thing, licensed car park attendants are often substituted by others who do not have the necessary permit to work as such.
One understands that attendants cannot be expected to stay in the car park they are assigned to day and night, but at the same time some form of regulation must cover their presence. After all, they are in more ways than one responsible for the general management of the car park they take care of.
What the ADT should also do is monitor the way the licensed car park attendants operate. Some are always ready to give a helping hand to motorists as they park their vehicles, but there are others who simply do not bother to leave their place at the exit of the car park and simply hold out their hand for tips, sometimes gruffly too.
The other set of instructions that the minister issued to the ADT – the ones concerning road testing – are certainly more important in terms of the way the authority will be perceived, and this largely because the construction of roads is an expensive exercise that needs to be done properly.
The ADT and the Roads Ministry were, in the previous legislature, often the target of attacks by the opposition because of delays in the completion of projects undertaken as well as the fact that very often the cost of the work ended up being higher than the original estimate. There were also occasions when roads that were constructed from scratch suffered damage within a few weeks or months, and this as a result of work which was not up to standard.
Dr Gatt has made things clear in the way he wants the ADT to operate in this regard – any tests on roads are to be commissioned to independent companies with accreditation and a recognised reputation for quality assurance “such that results can stand in court should they be contested by contractors”.
More than this, contractors whose work regularly fails these tests are to be excluded from eligibility for subsequent tenders for a period of time.
What Dr Gatt is saying is that the ADT should distance itself from the tests it carries out on roadwork so that, if contractors are to be sued for whatever reason the ADT seems fit, its case would be stronger in the eyes of the court as such tests would have been carried out by companies that are independent of the authority.
The fact that the ADT has been instructed to exclude contractors who persistently fail to carry out the work assigned up to the established standards should also mean that the contractors themselves will feel more responsible and accountable for the work they carry out. Bad workmanship, if repeated, could result in disqualification.
This is, of course, a step in the right direction. The money used to pay contractors for road works – and this includes patching work – is public money or money derived from the European Union, and therefore should not be wasted.
The people rightly expect that any roadwork is done properly – our roads should be constructed and maintained in the best possible way to make our travelling easier and less frustrating and at the same time safer too.