Eco-contribution could have been introduced in a better way - Vassallo

The eco-contribution could have been introduced in a better way, there could have been more thought put into the process and better marketing, Parliamentary Secretary Edwin Vassallo acknowledged in parliament yesterday.

Speaking during the debate on a bill to implement budget measures, Mr Vassallo said he was not blaming anyone, except perhaps those who could have advised the government better.

The introduction of the eco-contribution was justified because there was a price which one had to pay for a better environment. Nonetheless, had this been within his area of responsibility, he might have done things differently.

Mr Vassallo pointed out that that under the Labour government, if people spoke on the environment, it was as if they were swearing.

It had been the Labour Party which had always been against initiatives, such as private enterprise, the building of a new airport, the new power station and EU membership.

The opposition, he said, should do as it was saying and take the people to the street since that would reinvigorate PN supporters and also recall what the MLP was all about, such as the wage freeze.

Would the MLP again promise to remove VAT? Would it remove the eco-contribution?

True, the government had asked the people to make sacrifices, but results were already evident, with the deficit last year contained within projections.

Mr Vassallo said that it was important that living standards were not reduced. Labour had not wanted EU membership so as to keep salaries low. The EU had given the workers new rights, Mr Vassallo said, but it seemed the opposition did not agree with this.

Earlier, Labour MP Carmelo Abela said the government was confused and did not know what it was doing. The private sector had not even been consulted before the eco-tax was introduced and the way it was introduced showed that the government did not know what it was doing.

Why should the people be expected to make sacrifices when the government, only a few months ago used to say that the country's finances were on a sound footing? This government was now even proposing a civil service wage freeze for three years while reducing workers' leave. And businesses were seeing government induced costs, and bureaucracy, rise. Where was accountability? Who was responsible?

The government's confusion was evident in the way how, it had now turned out, only students aged up to 16 years were to be exempt from the increase in public transport. Another case was the confusion over the eco-tax on shotgun cartridges, even those used for clay pigeon shooting.

It was easy for the government to raise duty on cigarettes, but how about more practical measures to curb smoking, such as a cigarette free zone near the sixth form and better educational campaigns in schools?

Tobacco, and alcohol, were still too easily available for the young.

Mr Abela asked the government to give details on its programme for research and technical development. What funds had been dedicated to give research and innovation more importance?

The increase in funds given to the university would go for the settlement of its debts not for research. The EU had insisted that the government had to give its share in this sector, but the government's expenditure in this sector was negligible.

Labour MP Roderick Galdes hit out at the way the government was continuing to impose taxes, saying the people's purchasing power was being reduced, harming the economy. Time was proving that the eco-tax was a measure to raise revenue, not to protect the environment. How else could one explain how the tax was imposed on computers or mobile phones when there was no alternative to them?

If the environment was to be given priority, the accent should be on, say, waste separation at source, not taxation.

With over Lm370,000 raised from eco-taxes just in the last three months of last year, the government should say where the money was going.

He said the government was right to promote the use of bio-diesel but more should be done to promote solar energy.

Competitiveness Minister Censu Galea welcomed the fact that the word competitiveness was now in regular usage, although it did not mean the same for everyone. Competitiveness was a challenge for all sectors of the economy to provide the best services at the greatest efficiency and lowest price.

The minister said there was no doubt that Malta could not compete with the salaries of emerging economies.

It was important, however, that everyone had a personal commitment to do his duty and give a full day's work. The accent should be on quality and efficiency. Workers should embrace training for new roles.

The budget measures should not been seen in isolation. The government was taking other steps to improve efficiency and competitiveness. That included the investment made in communications and IT. And workers' training, as well as the education system, were very different from what they were only a few years ago. Much had been said about the eco-tax on computers, but not on how the government was handing out software to students at give-away prices.

Mr Galea insisted that businesses should see all of the EU as the internal market. Malta should insist that it remained in step with the targets of the Lisbon Agenda for competitiveness, aimed at making Europe the most dynamic economy.

George Vella, opposition spokesman on the EU, said it was unfortunately true, as Mr Galea had said, that competitiveness had not featured in the vocabulary before. The accent had only been on joining the EU. But the warnings that Malta's competitiveness was slipping had existed for a long time. Warnings had been sounded by the Governor of the Central Bank, the employers' organisations and the European Commission, among others, but the government carried on. Nevertheless the government imposed more taxes and other costs. The employers' organisations, for example, had warned of the costs to employers caused by new health, safety and environment standards and other provisions of the Employment Relations Act.

The MLP had also warned that certain EU regulations, higher wages and administrative requirements, would erode Malta's competitive advantage. But the government had only been bent on twisting the opposition's words in order to win the EU referendum.

Now the Prime Minister wanted to freeze civil service wages. This was the height of hypocrisy and the government should apologise to the people for its deception.

Indeed, the government was increasingly showing it was cut off from the people and did not know the hardships they were going through.

He hoped this was the last time that the government would abuse of the people's confidence. Enough was enough. Should there be the right attitude, the opposition was prepared to work with the government for the good of the country.

But the government should set the example, if it wanted economic recovery, not demand more sacrifices from the workers while friends were awarded fat contracts.

When in government, the MLP would insist that its programme would be implemented and those who did not like it should move on. The obstructions the 1996 Labour government faced would not be tolerated again.