The opposition cannot approve the Small Businesses Bill because it cannot bring itself to believe in it. It made no sense setting up a mammoth organisation to duplicate the work of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development, with the inevitable overlaps.

Opposition spokesman on financial matters Charles Mangion noted that in his closing remarks when introducing the Bill, Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi had said the Bill was trying to make bureaucracy more small business-friendly. In actual fact, Dr Magion said, it was contributing to greater bureaucracy.

The council being proposed by the Bill, made up mostly of government department representatives, could well come up with a joke that it was not government-induced costs that were hampering industry.

The Bill had originally included a test for SMEs that had to be passed. But if it was mandatory to explain the Bill, explanatory notes were nowhere to be seen. There was no note about whether or not the Bill would have any effect on SMEs.

How would the Bill manage to trim bureaucracy? A one-stop shop could never be achieved with everything being done in parallel. Last December the Malta Reform Programme (MRP) had mentioned five crucial points if Malta’s economy was to grow sustainably. But how long would people have to hear about sustainability of public finances? They had either grown or the government’s repeated clichés were an admission of regress.

Earlier, Dr Mangion said that although it was true some SMEs exported part of their output, most were producing for the local market. In spite of the small size of their workforce, they deserved all the attention they could get.

The Central Bank’s latest annual report said consumer confidence indicators showed more pessimism last year compared to 2009, which had been one of the worst in the country’s history. This meant consumer confidence would find it hard to recuperate in the next months because prices were expected to keep rising.

Dr Mangion said inflation was on a record trend. The government was certainly not helping towards consumer confidence with all the excise duties it had introduced.

It was true that exports had bounced back to the levels of 2008, rather than surpassing other years. But manufacturers’ share of the export market was in reverse. Only 3.5 per cent of the GDP growth had meant better income for families. Most of the progress seen had been made in banks and the financial services.

Banks were meant to protect industry and consumers, but this was not evident in their exaggerated profits on the strength of bank charges even on first-time home buyers.

All this affected business and the infrastructure.

Dr Mangion said initiatives taken by the government on micro-enterprises had cost €5 million, but Dr Azzopardi had said nothing about NSO figures which showed that just through the utility tariffs, Enemalta Corporation had increased its turnover by €77 million in just one year, of which €35 million were payable by SMEs. This affected their competitiveness and led to higher prices unless they accepted shrinking profits.

GDP growth statistics had finally burst the government’s bubble: only €130 million had been caused by foreign price rises. The rest were through higher utility tariffs to make up for Enemalta’s inefficiencies. Such was the cost of bureaucratic inefficiency for micro-enterprises.

Profit from tourism had slumped to half of what it had been in 2004, when from every €100 spent there was a net profit of €11, but only €4.30 last year. This meant investors were sliding backwards and costs were escalating.

Salaries and wages had accounted for 25 per cent of costs in 2004, now down to 23 per cent. Even if wage costs were disregarded, induced costs had gone up.

Salaries and wages must develop in line with production, so other ways must be found of being competitive. One of those ways was how to make workers more skilled. The fact that about 37 per cent of Maltese youth left school unskilled without academic competences showed that there must be a serious analysis of the level of academic skills, not the extent of spending on education.

The MRP had also mentioned higher value-added activities and said the bottlenecks were several.

Dr Mangion said that five years ago the Prime Minister had announced a new committee under his chairmanship to make suggestions on reducing bureaucracy and becoming more efficient, but the committee had done absolutely nothing, not even so much as a report. How did the government now want to address the problems with new structures in competition with those already in existence?

It was good for any administration to seek to be more business-friendly. The government had once promised to make Malta Enterprise a one-stop shop, but the result had invariably been discontent because of inconsistencies in different policies.

The road to less bureaucracy lay in the streamlining of rules. If the Bill had said every department or authority could give advice on how to streamline it would have been good. The Enterprise Consultative Council was being set up under the minister’s chair to give the government advice on how to make the business world more attractive, but it was bound to be a top-heavy administration. How could a minister chair the same council he was seeking advice from?

Since 2002 the MCESD had practically had the same structures and aims as the proposed council and it would have made more sense to further develop the MCESD structure.

The opposition could neither approve nor believe in the Bill because the council would be another MCESD with a different name. Malta would be paying out €220 million for similar structures. What if the two bodies disagreed and gave the minister conflicting advice? Would he end up disregarding both?

Dr Mangion criticised the composition of the College of Regulators where some entities differed so much from each other that they would still take an interest in their particular sector only. This was not the way forward. The Bill would be another blow to business.

The opposition could not approve the Bill because it increased bureaucracy and the burden on taxpayers and its main aim would not be accomplished.