The publication of the Transport document by the Nationalist Party got entrapped in political controversy for the wrong reasons with the result that it has lost the surprise element that such type of documents are intended to create to the extent that it is no longer debated in the mainstream media. One could add that its launch was wrongly timed given the fact that the media is still caught up in the Panama Papers issue.

Within such a scenario, such a document will definitely fail to take centre stage on the national agenda, even if the topic is of utmost importance. The fact that the Labour Government has issued a statement declaring that most of the points are already being implemented does not detract from the importance of this PN document – let's not forget that most does not signify all. Government has all the good reasons to attack this political document.  It is part of the democratic game. Both the Government and the Opposition seek to keep each other under scrutiny.

Yet, one cannot ignore the fact that this initiative is now a dead duck. The two factors that killed this document are the following. First was the fact that Labour got a copy of this document before it was even presented to the public by the Nationalist Party. Therefore, Labour had the advantage of speaking about this document before the Nationalist Party, who had commissioned this survey, had the chance to make it public. Such leaks do not bode well and are destined to generate distrust in the Opposition’s document and any influence that the same Opposition may wish to have on the public.

The second fact, which in my opinion is even more important, is that this document focused mostly on traffic congestion. It is true that this is an element of great concern for drivers. Elimination of traffic jams is a priority, in particular during rush-hours but what about the issue of pollution that all this traffic is generating? Is not pollution an element of concern? Are we not witnessing an increase of smoking exhausts from buses, lorries trucks et al?

There are two effective ways to decrease pollution. The first is to reduce the level of traffic on our streets. Contrary to what the Labour Government has stated, the PN document makes sensible proposals in the right direction. The second factor is to have less pollutant vehicles on our roads. While MarthesePortelli should be credited with the fact that she took on board proposals coming from the private sector on this matter, I don’t think that the Nationalist Party is at its strongest point on this aspect, in particular, on the fact that Transport Malta is doing practically nothing on this issue. Worse still it is actually putting spokes in the wheels of any initiative that comes up from the private sector in this regard.

The increase in the number of cars and other vehicles in Malta canno longer be viewed in Keynes’ economic terms. Keynes theory explains such an increase as a result of the demand for capital. According to Keynes, such a demand is a primary cause for an increase in population. In turn, population increase brings about increase in the standard of living. This was the formula used by Mintoff for Malta’s economy growth. It was a time when the standard of living was gauged according to the increase of the number of cars on our roads. Today, increase in cars is no longer used as a gauge. People are asking for a better environment and cleaner air. This goes beyond issues of climate change.

It is a known fact that most of the pollution is caused by heavy vehicles. In professional jargon, most of these vehicles in Malta have engines, which go below the European Union recommended mark of Euro5, which will become obligatory on all commercial vehicles by 2020. Many still prefer to import cheap vehiclesthat are being discarded in other parts of Europe.

While measures have been taken to decrease the number of pollutant cars, it is more difficult that these measures will be directed towards big vehicles running on diesel. The economic stakes are high. It is not easy to take them off our streets. The idea of the present Government is to continue on the same line of its predecessor and tax or fine pollutant vehicles when caught out or by imposing on them higher licence fees.

This can only work on small vehicles but since heavy vehicles are extremely expensive to purchase, those in the business are reluctant to change their lorries and will be more than ready to continue to pay higher licenses to keep them on the road. In the long run, it is still cheaper for them to pay exorbitant licence fees than purchase a new vehicle, which is less pollutant and less of an eye-sore. Some are in such bad state that one wonders how they got through VRT.  

In terms of engines, there is no much difference between the one used in a relatively old vehicle and a new one. In other words, old engines, which are graded as Euro 3 or lower can be easily upgraded to a euro 5 or 6, without the need of changing the engine. Modern filters can do this upgrade very easily. But filters come at a cost.

The problem here is that Transport Malta does not want to recognize efforts made by those owners who wish to upgrade the engine of their commercial vehicles to Euro 5 or over. Transport Malta is insisting that with or without this upgrade, the vehicles’ engine will continue to be assessed according its original make, that is, if it is a Euro 3 engine will continue to be taxed as euro 3 despite the fact that after the installation of filters its has a performance of a euro 6 engine.

Interestingly enough, those most irritated by such type of irrational decisions being taken byTransport Malta are genuine Labourites. I have participated in a programme of F-Living, where Carmel (Lino) Brincau was outlining the difficulties he is facing with Transport Malta to have his proposal to be considered. He is merely asking for incentives to be introduced so that heavy vehicles owners can have less pollutant engines on our streets for the benefit of all, but most for those living in the centres of congested localities. One certainly cannot accuse Brincau of being a Nationalist. He is the son of the General Workers Trade Unionist, Sonny Brincau. He told me, he is a Labourite but does not belong to the inner sanctum of the party. Hence his proposals are falling on deaf ears.

It is this cry of distress that the PN should start addressing more intelligently if it wants to make any headway in local politics. The Party does not only need to assess all proposals, including the good ones coming from desperate Labourites, who are having their ideas shot down because they are not part of the Moviment clan, but should also start to publically acknowledge their sensible proposals. At the same time, NP needs to get rid of those individuals whose only interest is to leak out information to the rival Political Party through their friendship with the Moviment.