Opposition leader Joseph Muscat criticised the government for its plans to impose a charge for use of the Blata l-Bajda Park and Ride and said it would be a burden on the people, particularly those who needed to go to Valletta regularly.
He also asked whether the government had had talks with the European Union before announcing a two-tier bus fares system which would make a distinction between residents and non-residents.
Speaking during the Budget debate in Parliament this morning, Dr Muscat said what was more unacceptable was Transport Minister Austin Gatt’s reaction to the criticism levelled by the MHRA on this “debateable” two-tier bus fare system. Dr Gatt had accused the MHRA of wanting the Maltese to pay dearer fares.
Dr Muscat said that this was proof of the lack of preparation on the ministry’s side, the more so when the minister said that if the EU found any objection, tariffs would be higher than those already announced. Did this mean that six months before the start of the service, one could envisage a postponement?
The minister also created uncertainty by declaring that tariffs under the CVA system were too cheap. Shop owners in Valletta had already expessed concern about the way they were being adversely affected by the lack of parking in Valletta. In such a situation, the minister’s declaration was indeed very dangerous. Dr Gatt should have declared whether the CVA tariffs were going to remain the same or whether he intended to charge higher tariffs. The country cannot take more uncertainty.
Dr Muscat said that this was similar to the fact that only a few days after the Budget, there was the announcement that motorists parking at the Park and Ride at Blata l-Bajda would be charged. This new measure would practically affect everybody more than the hike in fuel prices.
Without entering into the merits whether the Park and Ride should be charged, he said that the Budget was there to plan ahead. For many people this meant tens of euros and the least Dr Muscat would have expected was that such a measure be announced in the Budget. Only thus would the people understand the changes they would be experiencing in the coming year. It was evident that the government had this measure in mind before the Budget but failed to make it public.
Dr Muscat said that the Prime Minister had much to answer for what was said by government members during the Budget debate on the various votes. He specifically referred to former minister Ninu Zammit’s contention on water harvesting. The Budget had indicated that the system would cost €400 million but in Mr Zammit’s time as minister, the system was estimated to cost €70 million.
This was a very important statement made by a former minister that warranted an explanation. It was not a question whether the funds would be spent or not but how they would be spent.
Government expenditure next year was expected to increase by €12 million and in 2012, on the eve of the next general election, such expenditure would rise by six times as much.
Turning to Arms Ltd, the leader of the opposition again questioned why Arms was formed. The answer was deluding him more after the debate on the opposition motion. Practically, Dr Gatt told Parliament that nothing had changed and the work previously done by Enemalta and the WSC was now being carried out by this new entity.
If there was no change, what was Arms set up? The exchequer was spending more money and the people were not being served.
Dr Muscat also reiterated a call he made on Monday for the government to publicly assure the public that the instructions given to IBM for the writing of the software for the billing of water and electricity tallied with what was laid down in the legal notice on the tariffs. He had expected a public statement on the issue. Consumers needed to have the peace of mind that their bills reflected the legal tariffs.
He said he had commented on this issue with a sense of responsibility, and the government owed it to the public to reply.
Why was the government against the Auditor General investigating the contract for the procurement of smart meters when it had accepted that he investigate Arms Ltd? He asked the Prime Minister to reconsider this decision.
Finance Minister Tonio Fenech had said during the debate that the Arms issue should be discussed in the House Public Accounts Committee and not before the whole House because there, the management could be questioned by the members of the committee. This was diametrically opposed to what was said on the BWSC contract issue when it was said that Enemalta officials should not answer questions before the PAC because the Auditor General had already carried out this exercise. What was the problem for Enemalta top people – the former and present chairmen and CEOs – to give their evidence before the PAC?
As a matter of principle, if there was no problem in having the Arms management before the PAC there should not be any obection to having the Enemalta people before the same committee.
Turning to the pending debate in Parliament on a private motion by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando for the introduction of divorce, Dr Muscat said that although this debate was due to be held in January, the government should discuss the procedure with the opposition and not bring the issue up for debate overnight.
Replying, the Prime Minister said in the afternoon that he was disappointed that the leader of the opposition, after speaking so much about the environment and air quality, had only in his speech referred to the two-tier fares scheme.
The distinction, he said, did not discriminate between nationalities but was based on residency. This was common throughout the EU. The implication of what Dr Muscat was saying was that visitors would end up getting another subsidy.
What he would have expected the opposition to note was how the new bus service would bring about an immediate improvement in air quality, not least because the buses would have Euro 5 engines.