Under fire... Edward Scicluna. Photo: Matthew Mirabelli

Opposition finance spokesman Tonio Fenech yesterday accused Finance Minister Edward Scicluna of not being prepared to the point of being unable to give “simple answers to simple questions”.

During the committee stage of the Budget Measures Bill, Mr Fenech said that it was not acceptable in a serious democracy to treat the Budget measures in this way.

He complained that during three days of debate, he was indeed not satisfied with the way Prof. Scicluna answered Opposition’s questions.

Prof. Scicluna replied that Mr Fenech knew that when he had specific technical questions he could always put a parliamentary question.

Mr Fenech retorted that he did not know how many times they had to stop the committee proceedings to consult the minister’s advisers. That was proof enough that Prof. Scicluna did not want to give the requested information.

“I will not put in parliamentary questions to be told that an answer would be given in a future sitting and this answer would never come.” This showed, Mr Fenech added, the government’s lack of transparency. He said the minister should have had information at hand to tell the Opposition how much he expected to raise from taxation he was suggesting.

“It is not anything out of this world to expect the Finance Minister to know such a simple answer on forecasts he should have been involved in before drafting the budget.”

Prof. Scicluna said that the government was determined to stem all abuses. He said cement importers were trying to circumvent paying tax in imports by declaring that they were not importing Portland cement but another product.

Mr Fenech said that this proved that Minister Scicluna was not prepared. It was not fair for the importers to be branded as thieves when they were importing a different brand of cement.

The minister was now addressing this issue but he was doing it unprofessionally because such measures should have been announced during the Budget speech, he said.

Prof Scicluna said he never said cement importers were thieves. There was a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion and Mr Fenech was siding with those who were avoiding tax.

Mr Fenech said the minister was unjust in saying that he was in favour of tax avoidance. The minister had every right to address the issue but not to accuse importers of tax evasion. The government’s inconsistencies were alarming, he said.

Prof. Scicluna said he would leave it to the people to judge whether those who practised tax avoidance should now start paying tax on all brands.

Mr Fenech said these people would be paying more tax and that was not fighting tax avoidance because people would start thinking of finding ways to avoid it.

Prof Scicluna said he was closing a loophole for tax to be paid on all brands of cement.

Mr Fenech said all clauses increased taxes. He challenged the minister to suspend the clause and the Opposition would vote for another to introduce the tax on all types of cement.