MP promises to contest legal notice on eco-tax in court

Opposition environment spokesman Joe Brincat said yesterday he would contest the legality of a legal notice on eco-tax in court at the first opportunity because such a measure had to be introduced through legislation and not a legal notice.

Dr Brincat was speaking in Parliament during the debate on an opposition motion to annul a legal notice published on December 31 to extend eco-taxes.

The Labour MP said everyone from the President down had a duty to protect the constitution. In terms of the constitution, only Parliament could impose a tax. The government had tried to go around this provision by styling this measure as an "eco contribution." Yet it was clear this was nothing other than a tax.

It was manifestly clear that a minister could not impose taxes such as this through a legal notice. The principle was "No taxation without representation" and the minister did not represent Parliament.

These regulations violated the constitution because the House could not even consider them without a recommendation from the President to the Speaker, as tax legislation required.

The minister had boasted of consulting various sectors before the eco-tax came into force. But it was Parliament which should have been consulted first.

Environment Minister George Pullicino said he was not a lawyer but would respect the advice given by the Attorney General. Indeed, Labour governments had used the same powers which Dr Brincat claimed to be in violation of the constitution.

But what the environment needed was not legalisms, but action.

The opposition had said in its motion that the legal notice had a very negative social-economic impact on the people and had demanded an assessment study of this measure.

He would table this study when the Labour MPs tabled the Labour government's impact assessment of the water and power tariffs it had raised, and the impact of the recent MLP Plan for Economic Regeneration, including the proposed removal of the workers' bonus and the raising of social security contributions.

This was not a poll tax, which others had wanted, but a contribution based on consumption which was socially just. He had explained the provisions of the eco-contribution provisions to the private sector organisations, pointing out that the contribution did not apply to plastic used by industry, for example. The organisations had also raised other points which the government had considered when it amended the original legal notice last month.

He would therefore now challenge the opposition to say how the eco-contribution was detrimental to industry, as it had claimed.

It was obvious that this measure was not beneficial to producers of harmful types of plastics. Indeed, the biggest such manufacturer had been consulted too. Suggestions had been made, and this manufacturer was shifting production to less harmful plastic. There had also been a market shift to degradable and biodegradable bags. As Nationalist MP Joseph Cassar had pointed out, EU studies showed that the implementation of 10 environment directives of the EU had led to the creation of 500,000 jobs.

The least he expected from the opposition was not to shoot from the hip but to acknowledge actions which were beneficial to the environment.

Mr Pullicino praised businesses which had acted to supply environmentally friendly bags, such as those made of cloth, even before this measure was introduced. This showed there were alternatives to the harmful products and it was therefore only fair to impose a charge on such harmful products.

The leader of the opposition had said the government should have made an outright ban on harmful products. This government was against such bans but had followed the Irish model, where a tax on plastic bags had seen their use reduced by 90 per cent and environmental awareness rose steeply.

He had also visited a company at San Gwann which refilled computer ink cartridges, thus reducing the use of cartridges. This was yet another example of local environmental awareness taking root.

Computer sellers and drinks importers were also actively considering return schemes, which would ease the waste disposal problem.

It was significant that a survey by The Sunday Times showed that while a majority of respondents did not like paying a new contribution, 99 per cent were now more careful of the way they disposed of their waste.

The government remained ready to further discuss the eco contribution and the market's reaction to it and remained prepared to make changes as were necessary.

Mr Pullicino said he could not comprehend how the opposition in its motion could say that the government had no environmental or waste management plan. Malta had a national strategy for waste management, approved after an extensive series of consultations. A month ago a committee was formed to further improve this plan, including consideration of waste to energy schemes.

As part of the strategy, construction debris was no longer dumped at Maghtab, and that dump was eventually closed. Dr Sant had wanted it to remain open. Had that happened, the dump would now be 35 metres higher than it was last May.

Building debris was being dumped in quarries, and 15 such environmental scars had since been rehabilitated and turned into fields.

Waste which was not building debris was now dumped in a facility at Ta' Zwejra consisting of three cells where waste was stored in a way which did not harm the environment. The three cells had been projected to take eight months of waste, but the volume of waste had been reduced by so much that the cells could be used for a full year.

Also in terms of the strategic plan, the process for the rehabilitation of Maghtab and the other two dumps had been launched. This would be a Lm400 million project, 75 per cent of which would be funded by the EU. So how could the opposition say there was no plan. And where would the funds have come from had Malta not joined the EU?

Over the coming two years, the number of bring-in sites would be raised from 70 to 400. It was worth observing that 16 of 21 local councils which did not yet have such sites for the separation of waste were Labour-controlled.

The government was also setting up five Civic Amenity Sites and it would be upgrading the Sant' Antnin Waste Recycling Plant to European standards, even though Labour in its 1998 electoral programme had said problems at that plant had been eliminated.

The opposition had also called for a comprehensive environmental plan, yet the MLP did not attend meetings of the National Council for Sustainable Development. No wonder it did not know what was happening.

The opposition criticised the government over the eco-taxes, yet Labour in its economic regeneration plan had proposed to impose punitive taxes to curb smoking, alcohol abuse and pollution. Would the opposition say what it now meant by punitive taxes?

Marie-Louise Coleiro (MLP) said the PN had been in government for 17 years and it was only now boasting that it had a plan. It should explain to the people what this plan was all about.

The environment was something which everybody should enjoy, independently of political beliefs. The government should therefore have come to Parliament for a proper debate and not a confrontational one as Mr Pullicino had made it by quoting from a Labour document which was still in draft form.

The government was making comparisons between the eco-tax here and in other countries such as Germany. It was true that eco-taxes had led to job creation in Germany, but the system there was introduced over a four year period and the process was addressed at the environment and job creation.

In Malta the government had simply imposed a tax, which was charged over and above VAT after taxpayers' money was squandered.

The government would have found the opposition's backing had it acted solely on the basis of the pollution pays principle and had it placed greater accent on educating the people to protect the environment, rather than impose a tax.

Ms Coleiro said research by Simon Fraser University at British Columbia showed that a poorly-designed eco-tax hurt productive sectors and low-income households, but this could be prevented through intelligent policy design. This was seriously lacking in Malta, as reflected by the very fact that the government had already started to change the regulations. The research said the eco-tax shift should not be abrupt but with care about the impact on the people and their values.

In Malta, the tax would impinge on the cost of living since it was even charged on washing detergents and toiletries - over and above VAT. Such products were an essential element of people's purchases. Had the government really wanted to address the environment, it would have taxed the plastic containers of detergents while reducing VAT on detergents which came in cartons.

The opposition motion was defeated after a division. Other speakers will be reported tomorrow.