Eco-tax provisions 'not written in stone' - Gonzi

The Prime Minister said yesterday that the provisions on the eco-contributions were not written in stone and the government remained committed to further consultations about them.

He also repeatedly stressed yesterday that the introduction of the eco-contribution was not something which the government had come up with in a matter of weeks out of financial panic.

"It is not the government which is panicking. This measure was announced in detail in the November Budget speech. The panic is being shown by those who are refusing to shoulder their moral responsibility towards the environment," Lawrence Gonzi told parliament.

The Eco-Contribution Bill that had been moved before the House were as close to the proposals made in the Budget as possible, Dr Gonzi said.

He said the people were giving more importance to the environment than ever before. One no longer calculated the quality of life simply in monetary terms but also on other aspects such as air and water quality and cleanliness.

The common thread in the debate on the eco-contribution was that there was need to do something about the environment, "as long as that does not affect me".

But, Dr Gonzi said, MPs had a responsibility to be leaders and base their remarks on the needs of the country and the people, not simply try to please everyone. The environment, after all, involved the quality of life of future generations, in the same way as pension and health reforms. The waste generated today could impact on the quality of life of future generations unless it was properly disposed of.

Both sides appeared to agree that safeguarding the environment was important. But the real test was how to do that, and whether one had the courage to take certain difficult decisions.

Clearly, doing nothing about the environment would make the situation worse.

There also seemed to be agreement that one should promote a culture which was more responsible for the environment. Greater awareness had to come through education, but sometimes one also had to impose regulations and penalties.

In the debate in the House and elsewhere, some had tried to give the false impression that this was a rushed financial measure which the government had come up some three weeks ago. Yet this measure was first announced in November during the Budget speech when the House was even told what revenue was expected.

Among other things, the government had said:

"A system of eco-contribution will, therefore, be launched. Part of this eco-contribution will be collected from containers of consumption products as containers make up an essential part of the waste management problem in our country. The system, which will be gradually introduced, will be based on three principles:

¤ the eco-contribution will incentivise more use of the deposit-refund schemes on containers;

¤ the amount of eco-contribution on the various types of containers would reflect the environmental impact of containers and would, therefore, depend on factors such as material and container size - hence the incentive for use of containers with a lesser environment impact;

¤ the eco-contribution is primarily intended to discourage consumption with a non-acceptable environmental impact."

The government had also declared in November that: "Next year, this eco-contribution will be introduced on a limited spread of containers of locally consumed products both produced locally as well as imported. There will be no eco-contribution on products meant for export."

The government had promised that this measure would be reviewed regularly depending on the extent to which local producers/importers shouldered their responsibilities from an environment point of view. This could happen when local operators put in play systems by which material that was put on the market would be recovered and managed in a way that would not leave any negative impact on the environment.

Dr Gonzi also pointed out that the government had declared that the other part of the eco-contribution would be on consumption products which, when thrown away, generated a negative environmental impact. "Next year, this eco-contribution will be collected on batteries, tyres, electronic apparatus, non-edible oils and oil filters," it had been said in the Budget speech.

This November declaration showed the irresponsibility of those who now claimed that this bill was being introduced suddenly and in a panic, Dr Gonzi said.

Indeed, the eco-contribution was first mentioned with the private sector even before the Budget was presented in the House. After November the government left it to the private sector to draw up product return and re-use schemes. But by April/May the government was told that no agreement could be reached by the parties concerned, and the government therefore had to proceed with this bill.

Those who claimed that there was no consultation on this measure must have been asleep, Dr Gonzi said.

The government was always open to consultation, but consultation did not mean telling the government not to do something, more so when the House had approved it through the Budget. That would amount to replacing parliament by government from the streets.

Consultation was held on the eco-contribution, and it would continue to be held. But consultation had to lead somewhere. One could not postpone decisions for months for consultations which then did not yield agreement as that would mean that those months would have been wasted.

It was worth remembering that the Budget speech was also meant to include proposals on pension reforms. But the government had bowed to a request by the social partners to postpone the proposals by six months so that consensus could be reached. Seven months on, no agreement, was in view.

The government, Dr Gonzi said, was showing the moral courage to act, because doing nothing for the environment would make the situation worse. The same argument also applied to pensions and health.

But the opposition and others did not want change on all three subjects. This, after all, was the same opposition which had urged the government to keep Maghtab open. It was the same party which, when in government had only acted over the Maghtab problem by having the then prime minister take a helicopter ride over it.

Dr Gonzi said there was no denying that the eco-contribution would have an impact on the cost of living, but it would also have a positive impact on the people's quality of life. This was not a measure aimed at deficit reduction but at promoting the use of certain products over others and bringing about product recycling.

The bill included clauses where importers/producers would be exempted from the eco-contribution when they came up with product re-use schemes.

The government had also been careful over how the rates were introduced. The people did not buy fridges every day, and it needed to be recalled that after May 1, there had been substantial price reductions on white goods following the lifting of import levies. Shouldn't the country get something back to partly finance the disposal of those products?

The government viewed the eco-contribution measure as socially fair, but the bill was not written in stone and the government was committed to improving it, even following proposals that would be made by the commission being set up with the private sector, Dr Gonzi concluded.

The Eco-Contribution Bill was given a second reading last night after a division, the opposition voting against. It will be considered in committee next Monday. Other speakers in yesterday's sittings will be reported in another issue.