Health is always in the limelight, however this week it hit the political agenda, with the consequence that we have relived the advances made in the health sector over the last five years and furthermore, were given the opportunity to understand where either of the political parties will take this essential service in the next legislature.

Health is not and should never become a political football; anybody trying to milk the subject politically should rethink his strategy. Health has been at the forefront both locally and internationally and will so remain. While all political parties pay lip service to this non-political sector, I would recommend that both parties restrain their journalists covering the press calls related to this subject, as some of these were base, purely political and was a disservice first and foremost to the sector and also to the general public.

While criticism forms a healthy part of democracy, it should always and only be restricted to constructive criticism.

I enjoyed seeing the progress made in this sector. There is no doubt that not only medicine has made great advances, but also our country as a whole. It is evident that our fellow citizens working in the sector have grown in their knowledge and the end result is a health service one is very comfortable with. Mention should always go to the doctors, nurses, pharmacists and all other workers in the fields complementary to medicine for this success.

This having been said, it does not mean that there is nothing to criticise. I would have expected the political parties to bite the bullet and address issues that are anomalies in the service, even though they may not all be vote-catching. I would have expected, after a long week of exposure, discussions, press conferences and whatnot, to hear concerns about the methodology used by our consultants and senior medical personnel when carrying out their responsibilities. Of this we heard nothing. Is it not clear to the public at large that consultants and resident specialists should give the service a full day’s work as they are being paid to do? Why is it that a number of such personnel leave the hospital by early morning? Why is it that some do not give the 40-hour week requested by law and leave to render services in the private sector when they should be at Mater Dei Hospital?

Are doctors so powerful that they cannot be rapped over the knuckles? Are we afraid of a repetition of 1977 and, as a result, do the main political parties avoid such controversy? Well, we the public believe that they are responsible people who should give the service a better return and the Department of Health should not be afraid to take up the issue with them and Medical Association of Malta, if need be. Abuse is indefensible and it is always wrong, irrespective of who participates in it.

I am only repeating what are known facts; I am not against doctors continuing their private practice but for the sake of correctness, this should be at the end of their working day at Mater Dei Hospital and not during. It is useless condemning the waiting lists if we do not address the problem with measures that are well within our competences and which do not unduly increase the costs of such measures. The public pays taxes and therefore expects maximum return on them; the health sector takes a large chunk of these taxes to the tune of €1 million per day. We commend this expenditure and hope that more will be spent on the sector. I trust the message is conveyed; whether it will fall on deaf ears we have yet to find out.

Another issue that springs to mind when discussing health issues is the so-called Specialist Register. I declare myself to be an interested party in this discussion, but at times I feel that we are losing the plot. First of all, I cannot understand how we create a Specialist Register by appointing persons as specialists, when such a grade does not even exist in our public medical service. It seems as though somebody got it wrong here. Clearly, the civil service, which promoted the introduction of such concepts, missed out on some amendments. At this stage I will refrain from further comments, but this will not be a subject I will leave dormant.

Inland Revenue Department

Last week I criticised the Inland Revenue Department for an element of bureaucracy experienced, but this week it is their turn to be praised. I was invited to discuss the matters that arose during a meeting I had gladly accepted to attend. I have to say that I met personnel who are working hard to remedy the issues which arise from a system that is tailor-made for all the country and which therefore can give rise to issues like those mentioned last week. The computer system of tax collection and registration is written in such a manner as to retrain or prevent abuse as much as possible; however this in turn leads to a degree of inflexibility that could give rise to anomalies. I have to thank the Department for the interest taken, for remedying the situation and, more importantly, for the explanation given to me which I will gladly pass over to you. As a result of the measures introduced today, nearly 73 per cent of citizens do not need to fill in an income tax return. These include employees, pensioners and a number of smaller categories of people. The system is constantly being upgraded to help us, its clients, receive a better service. Employees are being trained to understand the new customer-oriented approach required. These are indeed comforting explanations.