Gozo waste transport causing inconvenience on ferries

Labour MP Justyne Caruana yesterday criticised the government and Wasteserv, its waste disposal company, over the method being used to ship waste to Malta on the Gozo ferries.

She told parliament during the debate on the Eco-Contribution Bill that refuse trucks were using the ferries twice daily, causing inconvenience and a health hazard to passengers and crew.

The stench, she said, was unbearable, and there were frequent spillages, spreading bacteria everywhere.

All this was happening despite government assurances that trucks and containers were washed and sealed before they were taken on board the ferries.

At one time she had been told in reply to a parliamentary question that smells from the trucks were "minimal". She would challenge any member of the Cabinet to see for themselves.

This inconvenience, she said, had come on top of a recent increase in the ferry tariffs, leading Gozitans to question the justification of the so-called eco-contribution.

Indeed, the imposition of this eco-tax only showed the consistency of this government in trampling over the people and imposing more taxes.

The opposition, she said, was not against measures to improve the environment, but action, when it was taken, needed to be taken seriously.

For example, the government boasted of having closed Maghtab and the Qortin dump in Gozo. But surely proper action could have been taken to avoid the frightful rat infestation at Xaghra and Marsalforn after Qortin was closed.

And surely better measures could be taken for the proper transport of waste from Gozo to Malta. Indeed, one should question if waste should be ferried on the same ships with passengers. She did not think so.

Dr Caruana said the opposition was against this bill because it did not respect the "polluter pays" principle. It would tax everybody, meaning no one would have an incentive to cut down on waste or dispose of it properly.

This bill could also lead to the setting up of another monster authority, with the associated administration costs.

The bill, she said, also gave the minister responsible for the environment excessive discretionary powers. She felt that when the minister decided to exempt somebody from the tax, his reasons should be published.

The bill should also establish a schedule of the administrative fines which could be imposed by the competent authority, rather than just establish a minimum and a maximum.

Concluding, Dr Caruana said the courts in Gozo should be competent to hear cases relating to violations of this law. Unfortunately, the bill made no mention of the courts in Gozo.

Evarist Bartolo (MLP) said the government was isolated over this bill and was showing itself to be surprised that the people were linking this measure with the deficit. Yet such a link had been made even by Parliamentary Secretary Tonio Fenech in a Sunday Times interview when he said that if one did not want to raise the deficit and one did not want a Maghtab, one had to find other funds. Before the election the people were told that government finances were on a sound footing, and there was no talk of an eco-tax.

There was nothing wrong in proper environment taxes, but the government, through this measure, was giving a bad name to environmental taxes.

Environmental taxes were meant to be fiscally neutral and enjoy a broad measure of support.

In Malta, this measure would not be revenue-neutral, and the way it was being introduced was in stark contrast to what happened overseas.

For example, the Czech Republic planned to introduce eco-taxes next year. Its preparations started two years ago and detailed consultations were being held, along with a PR campaign. In Malta a commission on how the tax would work would be set up when the law would have already been enacted!

In Denmark, too, all the social partners were working together on a Green Budget Reform to be held later this year.

Was anyone in Malta convinced that the products that would be subject to the eco-tax were the most environmentally harmful?

This bill was a betrayal of the principle that eco-taxation should be fiscally neutral. In Malta, this measure would raise revenue by Lm4 million. Overseas, revenue from eco-taxes was offset by reductions elsewhere, such as social contributions. And care was taken for such taxes not to affect competitiveness.

Research showed that 70 per cent of people agreed on a proper tax to improve the environment in a way which was complemented by an easing of the tax burden elsewhere.

Mr Bartolo said that Mr Fenech had admitted that the Maltese were living beyond their means. But was the government careful about how it was spending the people's money?

At a time when the people were being asked to curb their expenses, did it make sense for the government to spend over Lm100,000 on rent of a property from the private sector to be used by Wasteserv? Did the government not have property which could have been used instead?

Mr Bartolo urged the government to amend the bill, stressing that social and economic consensus was very important.

New Labour MP Roderick Galdes said this bill was not based on the "polluter pays" principle and could not be described as an eco-tax.

Had it been an eco-tax, it would have been directed at the real polluters, such as major industries which abused in the way they disposed of their waste. An eco-tax would also have included incentives to buy eco-friendly products.

But what would happen was that everybody would be made to pay for a waste system akin to what was found in third-world countries.

Mr Galdes said he had information that Wasteserv were not disposing of waste at the storage facility near Maghtab according to EU standards. Capping was being avoided so as to keep the rubbish heap as low as possible.

He said that the UK had introduced a system for the reuse of items found in the waste system. The Maltese government should consider setting up a storage site to sell, at a low price, usable items that would have been thrown away.

Mr Galdes said the government had to lead and coordinate efforts aimed at improving the environment.

It was shameful that Mepa had requested the Qormi council to pay Lm10,000 to monitor air in that locality. How could councils be expected to afford such rates?

Labour MP Gavin Gulia hit out at the way the government, repeatedly over the years, said the deficit was under control, only to continue to raise taxes.

It was clear that the aim behind this bill was revenue generation. The schedule of items which would be taxed included products which did not harm the environment.

Indeed, government policy on waste management was muddled. One only needed to remember how the government had wanted to set up landfills next to Hagar Qim and Mnajdra temples, an exercise which had cost the country time and money.

At the same time the government was continuing to squander money, as evidenced by the purchase of the Brussels embassy, a decision which should be the subject of an inquiry.

Opposition agriculture spokesman Noel Farrugia said the imposition of another tax when many people could not make ends meet was irresponsible.

What the government needed to do to preserve the environment was to go back to basics, such as protecting water sources. Millions were being spent on the treatment of waste and sewage, but not to safeguard the natural sources of water and the water courses. Malta also needed to draw up a national agricultural plan for organic production.

This government had lost the June 12 elections and if it continued to act like "a bully" and did not heed other people's advice, it would suffer a landslide general election defeat, Mr Farrugia said. Rather than tax the people, it would be better if the government no longer closed an eye to certain abuse, such as in the case of a Ta' Qali restaurant operating without a proper permit.

Mr Farrugia also criticised the government for not holding a parliamentary debate on genetically-modified products, which the opposition was against.

Charles Buhagiar, opposition infrastructure spokesman, listed the government's environmental failures over the years, saying that for the past 17 years or so the environment had only been given lip service.

A report on waste disposal was commissioned by then Parliamentary Secretary Stanley Zammit soon after the PN government took office in 1987. Since then the government had lurched from one report to another, and from one consultancy service to another, wasting money and doing little else.

The Labour government of 1996 to 1998 wanted to make this problem a priority.

A measure introducing a tariff on construction waste going to Maghtab was introduced without problems due to the consultations which had been held.

The Labour government had introduced changes at Sant'Antnin Waste Recycling Plant so that it could start operating, and new areas were to be identified for similar plants. Debris also started being dumped into old quarries. Such dumping was continuing now, but the government did not seem to have planned a course of action for the time when it ran out of quarries. Labour had also launched the project of waste separation at home through a pilot project in Pembroke.

Since then the PN government had drawn up more reports and then took the mistaken decision of siting landfills near Mnajdra and Hagar Qim temples, a decision later reversed after Cabinet changes.

The government had agreed to remove legislation which made it compulsory for soft drinks to be bottled in glass, on the pretext that this was hindering competitiveness. But that only served to make the waste problem worse, and now a tax was being introduced, reinforcing Malta's position as one of the most taxed countries in Europe.

Mr Buhagiar said that his appeal to the government was to withdraw this bill, hold wide consultations and then move a fresh bill.