People would need to live like the Taliban to avoid eco-tax - MP

The people would need to live like the Taliban if they wanted to avoid the eco-tax, throwing away their television sets and growing long beards, Labour MP Adrian Vassallo told parliament yesterday.

They would also need to wash less frequently and replace their cookers with firewood, he said.

The Eco-Contribution Bill, debated in parliament throughout this week, imposes a charge on a range of products including containers for beverages, toiletries and white goods such as television sets and cookers.

Dr Vassallo said the bill did not make it possible for the people to avoid buying certain products unless they wanted to revert to old ways when there were no fridges and people cooled their water melons in wells.

And this was only the beginning, as there was no guarantee that the list of products subject to this tax would not be extended, particularly as the deficit grew.

This, Dr Vassallo said, was not really an eco-contribution but a tax which would affect everyone.

It was a measure taken by the government in an attempt to partly cover the deficit. Had it been otherwise, the measure would have been such as to encourage the people to buy certain eco-friendly products in preference to others.

This measure followed other revenue-raising measures, including the increase in VAT and in national insurance, once described as the bolla balla, and higher fuel costs.

At the same time the people were enjoying lower social benefits in real terms, particularly children's allowances, some health centres were not open around the clock and important state assets were falling within the privatisation programme.

It would have been better for the environment if the government appointed environment wardens and clamped down on those who really harmed the environment, including the power station and the hospital chimney.

Joe M. Sammut (MLP), who spoke earlier, complained that compliance with eco-tax legislation would mean higher costs and bureaucracy for businesses.

If competitiveness and job creation were to be given a boost, VAT should be reduced on certain products and other incentives introduced, such as lower power charges for night work, as was the case in Italy. The economy could not afford further taxation. It was already well known to everyone, except the government apparently, that consumer spending was down.

Polluters should be made to pay, but one should not impose taxes which were detrimental to the economy, as the government was doing. The failing of this bill was that it did not encourage consumers to prefer some eco-friendly products over others.

The government should consider what organisations, such as the GRTU, were saying, and postpone the bill until proper consultation was carried out.

He pointed out that even though the tax on glass bottles would only be paid at importation and such bottles would be reused several times, the cost of soft drinks in glass bottles would still go up, as the cost of the product could not fluctuate up and down according to the time the product was being used.

Dr Sammut also spoke about the lack of consideration given to the environment in general, mentioning sewage outflows at Wied Znuber. He stressed that the best environmental action that could be taken was a stronger emphasis on education.

Opposition health spokesman Michael Farrugia said the state of the environment was evident even from the condition of the seas in bathing areas around Malta. But instead of being tough with polluters, the government was taxing everyone across the board.

Air pollution was another daily problem, especially in traffic-prone areas as well as around the hospital incinerator. It was not realistic to say that the Maghtab dump was closed down on April 30. The truth was that waste was being dumped in the same area in a different method, and it was closer to residential areas.

Although membrane was now being used in the temporary storage area, when it rained it was impossible to stop toxic materials from running down the old Maghtab to the new temporary storage area.

Interjecting, Environment Minister George Pullicino said there was trenching between one place and the other.

Continuing, Dr Farrugia acknowledged that the Maghtab dump had been started by a Labour administration, but it was Nationalist governments that had allowed it to soar to levels high above the surrounding ground, constituting an eyesore to the major tourism areas in Malta.

Dr Farrugia said the eco-tax was simply a new measure to help the government bridge its financial gaps. The bill under debate proved that the government was short of ideas.

Marie Louise Coleiro, Opposition spokesman on social solidarity, said essential products were being taxed without any encouragement being given to the people to consider environment-friendly options. This was a tax on consumption, and lower and middle income earners were to suffer the most.

The opposition would have backed measures based on the polluter pays principle - but to introduce new taxes under the guise of an eco-contribution was unacceptable.

The polluter pays principle was based on education and encouragement to the people to seek products that were environmentally friendly.

The government had known for years that it would have to fork out part of the sum needed to address the environmental problem, but it had preferred not to do anything. It was only now that the government was imposing the taxes and, indeed, there was no legal commitment that the money collected would go towards addressing environmental problems.

Ms Coleiro observed that the state of the environment report had said that certain urban areas in Malta had pollution levels as high as in other countries of Europe. In spite of this, nothing had been done.

In many countries environmental tax was called green tax reform, because this was being introduced as part of a whole taxation reform and not as new additional taxation. Care was taken to ensure that eco-taxes did not impose added burdens on the economy. The opposite was the case in Malta.

Labour MP Josè Herrera referred to earlier remarks by the prime minister. He said that the fact that a measure was announced in the Budget did not mean that the opposition could not resist its introduction, even though the Budget was approved by the House.

This argument did not make sense. The opposition was independent and had its own agenda and principles.

Indeed, this bill was being criticised by practically everybody, including environment NGOs.

The main source of the opposition's argument was that this was taxation in an indiscriminate manner. When the cost of a product was raised and the increase was pocketed by the government, this was a tax.

To say that those who recycled their products would be exempt from the eco-tax was a gimmick, as recycling was very difficult here, because of low volumes.

Dr Herrera attacked the government's environment record and insisted that action was needed for alternative and sustainable sources of energy to be set up. The government also needed to act against abuse, such as illegal construction.