Call on government to publish statistics on cancer in the south

Labour MP George Vella yesterday called on the government to publish statistics of the pattern of different forms of cancer which have developed in the south of Malta in the 20 years since the building of the power station at Marsaxlokk. He suggested a state-of-the-environment report to see what the ultimate result would be, as there was a lack of information on power station emissions.

Speaking during the debate in second reading of the Bill amending the Consumer Affairs Act, Dr Vella said that the medical profession could not explain this rise in cancer but they had a perception that this was a result of the fact that the power station lacked filters. Nobody knew what the power station was producing, but the fact remained that the bays were full of toxins.

The government had asked for two more years' grace after the EU drew its attention to this. If it resulted that the increase in cancer was indeed due to lack of filters, then this was criminal, he said.

Dr Vella drew an analogy of the consumers who bought goods and services and the electorate, saying that the latter were also consumers as they had "bought" what the parties had promised in their electoral programme. Contract terms must be drafted in tangible and plain terms, and promises must be kept.

He referred to "the irony of this schizophrenic country" that while commercial contracts were given all the possible strength in legislation, the "contract" between the electorate and the party they voted into government was non-existent. This was an electoral or political contract where voters consumed that which the parties offered. And if it resulted that promises were not kept, the voter did not have any redress except to wait for five more years and vote that party out of office. This was one of democracy's injustices.

Dr Vella then listed a number of instances where the electorate had been misled. These included hunters, dockyard workers and farmers. Even before Parliament had been convened, the government had joined the Partnership for Peace when such membership had never been mentioned in the PN electoral manifesto.

The government had promised a better environment. But had such a promise been kept? The government did not even have the strength to stop buses which were polluting the air with heavy emissions.

No proper health impact assessment had been made with regard to the Sant' Antnin waste plant. All they had done was to talk to some 35 people who said they were not affected by toxins. Carbon dioxide, Dr Vella said, was not seen, but its effects would be felt when cancer developed.

And now the government had decided that an incinerator should be built next to the power station even, before the public consultation process had started.

Dr Vella said that the health service was one of the fundamental rights of consumers. A Lm300-million hospital had been built, but could anyone say that Malta had an efficient health service? Patients were not being served. The existing waiting lists would take years to be eliminated. Pre-election promises had not been kept even where breast-screening was concerned.

The water and electricity tariffs were another clear example of how the government treated the consumer. The government had hidden facts from the consumer and was now prolonging the saga. The people must be told what constituted the price of such utilities.

Despite promises that tariffs would be revised downwards if oil prices went down, tariffs remained the same. Even the regulator was party to this exercise because there was nothing that tied down the government to its word. There were consumers who were indeed worried about how they were going to pay the utility bills.

What was worse, Dr Vella said, was that if protests were held, unions were accused of scaring off investment and tourism.

Turning to the car registration tax, Dr Vella asked why the government was letting consumers go through the hassle of resorting to the courts to get what was theirs by right. This was not what the government did when, through some genuine mistake, someone received a higher pension than they were entitled to. Here, the pensioner must refund everything. This was nothing but a clear case of arrogance.

Dr Vella appealed to the Finance Minister to reconsider such a practice, because a refund of €4,000 by a pensioner was no joke.

The government had to back-track on satellite dishes and the departure tax.

The state of the roads was another thorn in the side of all vehicle owners who paid licences and taxes. Was the government convinced that Malta's roads were at par with Europe's?, he asked.

Concluding, Dr Vella lamented that consumer rights societies had never taken off in Malta, and there needed to be a complete culture change so that consumers could start participating.

Nationalist MP Clyde Puli said the government condemned promises based on misleading intent. Yet Dr Vella had accused the government of not having kept its promises which were based on such misleading intentions.

He said that it was Labour which had shown misleading intentions. It had claimed that Malta would only receive Lm1.5 million from the EU, but had been proved wrong because Malta had benefited from €1 billion that would ensure a better quality of life.

Mr Puli said that it had been a Labour government that promised the administration of the dockyard would remain in the hands of the workers. This had been a promise based on misleading intentions.

On students' stipends, Mr Puli said that it was Labour that had promised full stipends and when in power said stipends would be based on a 50-50 grant-and-loan scheme.

Before the 1996 elections, Labour had promised a revision of the utility services bills. But once elected it had increased them drastically.

Mr Puli said anything that undermined people's health should be identified and eliminated. Cleaner oil was now being used and this caused less health hazards. It was thanks to the EU that Malta would invest on alternative and cleaner energy.

On the subject of democracy, Mr Puli said that the PN believed in people's capabilities. When people realised that they had made the wrong decision in electing Labour in 1996, they had immediately corrected their mistake by returning the PN in the 1998 elections.

Mr Puli said even former Labour Finance Minister Lino Spiteri had described as wrong the Labour government's decisions on the elimination of VAT and the freezing of Malta's EU application.

Earlier, Anġlu Farrugia (PL) said the government should consider the experiences of countries which had joined the EU after Malta and yet were more advanced than Malta in consumer rights. Malta was one of the only six countries which were behind in transposing EU directives into domestic legislation.

Consumers should have rights to obtain information where government had control, such as utility services, taxes and VAT. He referred to the government charging a number of people VAT on vehicle registration, and the PL would soon file the lawsuit against the government on the issue. He said that this country could not have the situation where the government had a monopoly such as in utility services and increased tariffs and nobody could ask anything. Was there any consumer protection in this situation?

Dr Farrugia referred to EU Consumer Protection Commissioner Meglena Kuneva, who stated that for the EU to strengthen itself and to do away with economic problems, there should be consumer protection across all the 27 countries without having difficulties on their rights and redress.

Malta should follow the example of other countries and make consumer protection available without conditions. Maltese citizens had the right to know whether the increased tariffs were reasonable.

The government boasted of how much Malta had gained as an EU member, but then it did not implement the systems which people could benefit from. It was time to implement the various EU directives.

Maltese had been taken in by misleading advertising. The EU directive would give strength to the government to enforce the law and offer redress. He also advocated a harmonised enforcement procedure.

Dr Farrugia said the government was passive and this made it futile for the opposition to try to do anything to help. The Maltese delegation in the European Parliament with a Labour majority had done a lot more over the past five years than the government had. Nationalist MEP Simon Busuttil had not even presented a report, while Labour MEPs had submitted a countless number.

Turning to the Bill, Dr Farrugia said no one could argue against a businessman being prevented from changing the conditions of a contract. But then no one mentioned that the rights of the consumer in general were not being respected.

When the government was making its dealings with the EU, it had been aware of what had to be done when it came to consumer rights. Yet it persisted in proceeding slowly.

In many EU countries, such as Denmark and the UK, such cases were decided in line with the directives. But conveniently Malta did not fully implement some of the directives, but took a hybrid approach, which was close but not exactly the same. This was dangerous. Rights must be granted without delay.

He also referred to what Foreign Minister Tonio Borg had said about the government stand regarding refunds of the car registration tax, that vehicle owners had no right to ask for a refund. This was not right. The government had taken what did not belong to it, and now that thanks to the opposition the people had found out, the government was banking on prescription.

The opposition was prepared, united and really wanted what was best for the people. The government has to move forward so that consumers' rights were respected and things such as a unified consumer law might yet become a reality.