|
I refer to the article “Mugliett bypasses ADT and objects to speed cameras” and Saviour Balzan’s column “Smart-ass” which appeared in Maltatoday on September 17, 2006.
Since, in his efforts to paint a partial picture of the issue at hand, Karl Stagno-Navarra conveniently ‘forgot’ to include the larger part of Minister Mugliett’s replies to his questions, who argued that his action in this matter is in no way linked to the correspondence that the Zejtun Joint Regional Committee sent to the ADT CEO, but was triggered by information originating from other sources. The information said that the Zejtun Joint Regional Committee intended to use a type of mobile speed camera.
The Minister never refused to authorise the use of these cameras by the Joint Regional Committee, despite his strong objections to the use of such cameras on our roads. His decision to pre-empt the Committee with a letter dated 26 July, was based on a number of facts.
Firstly, the equipment that can be used for such purposes is regulated by Article 127 Sub Article (4) of the Motor Vehicle Regulations. Only equipment that appears here can be used as speed cameras on Maltese roads. The model of camera the Regional Committee wants to use does not appear in the same Article. The argument that similar (and thus not identical) devices are in possession of the Police Corps does not give automatic right to the Committee to use equipment which is not on the approved list.
Also, due to the fact that these devices have to be re-calibrated every time that their location is changed means that ADT officials would have to monitor them on a daily basis – putting a heavy burden on the Authority’s human resources.
There are also other issues such as road safety which would have to be addressed in that the setting up of such devices along roads where a hard shoulder is not present could restrict the flow of traffic, or worse, cause potentially dangerous situations to road users.
About the ‘sources’ that prompted the Minister’s letter to the Zejtun Joint Regional Committee, the Ministry answers that the sequence of events in itself proved that the information supplied by the sources was reliable and accurate.
The Minister’s action in this matter was in no way linked to the letter sent to ADT CEO. On receiving the letter (reply) from the Joint Committee, I referred it to the ADT’s lawyer for legal advice and a reply will be forthcoming in due course.
Once again about the constituency, This issue is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand – ie. the intended use of unauthorised equipment by the Joint Committee. The same action would have been taken had other Joint Committees intended to do the same.
The Minister neither takes decisions on fixed speed cameras but only on sanctioning of equipment. The ADT has a technical committee which examines each request and only consults with me in exceptional circumstances. Each case is decided upon according to its technical merits. I was never made aware of any request from the Zejtun Joint Committee to install fixed cameras.
From the above it is overly evident that the issue between the Joint Committee and this Ministry was not the why, when, where or who was going to install speed cameras, but rather, what speed cameras where going to be installed.
Minister Mugliett acted in the public interest by preventing a situation where a Joint Committee would be using illegal equipment to enforce speed limits on Maltese roads. Furthermore, his actions were consistent with having earlier held the Local Council Association from installing speed cameras before an agreement was reached on the allocation of a portion of the funds from speed camera fines to the ADT’s Road Safety Campaign. It is thus also clear that Karl Stagno-Navarra’s mentioning of the Minister’s constituency in his article was purely speculative and out of place.
Darrell Pace
Communications Co-Ordinator
Ministry for Urban Development and Roads
Editorial Note:
What is sensationalist to one is news to others. Our news report was not speculative but correct. Minister Mugliett evades the crucial issue raised in our news story: why did he feel the need to intervene and interfere in the setting-up of a speed camera in his constituency? Why did he get involved, especially when this is an issue that should be tackled at a lower level in the ADT, and when the minister prides himself of not getting involved in the niceties at ADT, as was more than evident in his stance throughout the cash-for-licences scandal at ADT?
|
