|
The Prime Minister’s declaration that 967 doors were ordered for the newly designed hospital when 464 feature on plans has re-ignited the controversy on the Mater Dei hospital. This revelation further alarms citizens already concerned about the spiraling costs of the project, originally, estimated to add up to Lm83 million Malta Liri, running to date at Lm129.2 million and forecast at a final cost of Lm200 million. These figures do little to enhance public trust in the way tax-payers money is being spent.
The cost overruns controversy and its implications are far too serious to be left out of the public domain. Government must lift the lid over the project. It must take the people in its confidence. The professional way forward is an objective and dispassionate assessment of all the estimated costs and the cost overruns to date. The taxpayer is correct to ask why the project costs have more than doubled. Why is that what was originally planned to be a specialised hospital has been converted into a general hospital for the whole country? When was that decisions taken? Is there a clear decision as to what is to be done with St Luke’s? What is the role of the Foundation of Medical studies in the project? Who carries the can? Who is to be held responsible and accountable for the project? Too many questions remain unknown and to date there has been no public declaration of all the facts and costs.
The whole matter calls for a calm discussion in Parliament on the way forward with all relevant documents being placed on the table of the House. This discussion should analyse the wisdom of having a specialised hospital. There should be an analysis of the original projected costs. Did it make sense in 1997 under a Labour Government to increase the size and the number of beds at the hospital? Was the decision to limit the involvement of Skanska correct? Was the contract signed by the Nationalist Government in the year 2000 sufficiently well drafted to safeguard the interest of the taxpayer? Should Skanska have been given control on the design, construction and project management? Should these different skills not have been parceled out to different companies? Is the contract now a source of controversy simply because of its content being subject to interpretation? These and many other questions need to be answered and preferably in a no holds barred parliamentary debate.
The hemorrhage this project is causing to the public finances necessitates that the proverbial bull is taken by the horns jointly by both political leaders working together in the national interest. The Prime Minister should renew his call to the Leader of the Opposition to work together and take him into his confidence. The matter could be far too damaging to the long-term interests of the country for Dr Sant to refuse. By accepting to work together the credibility of the Opposition will be enhanced. By taking a back seat position the Opposition will be sacrificing the national interest to favour a narrow Party interest. That would be neither good statesmanship, nor politically wise.
The Prime Minister is right to publicly demand full control over the costs incurred and yet to be incurred. He must however be reminded that cost overruns took place when he served as the deputy Prime Minister and no bouts of amnesia will erase his involvement. He too carries responsibility for the project as do all members of Cabinet who are collectively responsible. Does this project still come under the Health minister’s portfolio? The Mother of God only knows! Has the Minister been sidelined by the Prime Minister? Is the project now fully under the Prime Minister’s caring? The public has a right to know.
Alfred Sant must also bear his share of responsibility for taking the decision to enlarge the hospital and to convert it into a General hospital during his months in office although he consistently stated that Skanska should never have been given full control over the whole project. Time has clearly shown that granting total control to Skanska and entering a cost plus agreement was an error.
In the final analysis who is responsible for this Project? Can the right honourable Minister or Ministers please stand up? The project is a contributing cause to the public deficit. Just imagine what a lower deficit and interest financing the country would be running without this project of projects! It could only have been conceived and later expanded in a moment of delirium. It is in the public interest that all expenditure is explained and the entire project opened to public scrutiny.
|
