The fact that the government has taken the bull by the horns and has taken the local warden system out of the hands of the private sector, which had been making extremely lucrative profits for years on end, and placed the system in the public domain where it belongs is entirely commendable.

There is what can only be described as a glaring and basic incongruence when the private sector, which is, after all, purely driven by the bottom line, is basically running a public service that is responsible for issuing and collecting monetary fines from the public.

As such, it has always been in the interest of the companies running the warden system for their employees, the wardens themselves, to issue as many tickets as possible.  Perhaps the system and the private sector’s involvement in it was not meant to have been warped in the way that it had been once business concerns began seeking ways to eke out better profits from their operations.

The fact is that wardens have, so far, been labouring under a quota system, in which they were tasked with issuing a certain number of fines per day – in some cases as many as three an hour – is a perfect example of this inherent defect  in the system.

So much so that the former parliamentary secretary responsible for local councils had referred to the system as a “subsidised racket” when he had launched a white paper on the reform of the system.   The current PS responsible on Tuesday described the quota system as having turned the system into a “ticket issuing machine” in which wardens behave like “Gestapo officers” hiding behind trees to mete out tickets just to secure their income.

Through that reform, which has been brought into being with the publication of a recent legal notice, the government has sought to put an end to that racket.  The idea is for the new government agency to regulate the sector and to procure the services of wardens from the private sector at a fixed price.

So far, so good.  But now for concerns of the opposition, which has tabled a parliamentary motion on the issue this week.  These are, in essence, twofold.

Firstly, the opposition has taken exception to the fact that the new agency will fall under the direction of the central government, in conflict with the original ethos of subsidiarity and devolution, i.e. the passing on of more powers from central government to local councils.  This has done just the opposite, and perhaps rightly so.

Secondly, the opposition has, perhaps rightly, pointed out that the person who heads the centralised government agency will, in essence, be a politically-appointed person of trust.  That person will be responsible for determining when, where and how enforcement activities will, or will not, be carried out.

This in itself sets off a number of good governance warning bells.  For example, an appointee selected by the minister responsible for local councils will automatically be beholden to the government.  As such, who is to say that, come election time, for example, there might be an unexplained slowdown in the issuance of tickets in certain politically-sensitive localities, or across the country as a whole, in the process creating a false feel good factor?

This, of course, may not have been the premeditated rationale behind the choice of having a ‘person of trust’ heading the agency.  It does not mean that this kind of situation will necessarily pan out, but it certainly does not mean that it will not happen.  The new legislation, or any legislation for that matter, must have checks and balances in place that prevent such circumstances in the first place.  This one does not, in fact it appears to provide for such possibilities.

The first version of Malta’s local warden system was fundamentally flawed, as the country has seen time and timed again and we cannot but concur with the government that the system had been a “racket”.  This certainly had to be addressed and the government has taken a bold step in doing so.     

But, on the other hand, the new system raises some serious concerns of a different nature: instead of the private sector driving the system in its own interest, we are now faced with a situation in which the government would, if it chooses, be able to drive the system in its own interest.

Both states of affairs are unacceptable when it comes to the upholding of law and order in the country.  As such, further discussion on this serious matter as being demanded by the opposition is entirely welcome.  In this second attempt at defining the warden system, the country must get the formula right once and for all.