During the last of eight sittings dedicated to the debate in second reading of the Budget Measures Implementation Act, Labour MPs levelled criticism against the “wrong government policies and unacceptable deficits”, and labelling it “incompetent, inefficient, lacking discipline and far from being transparent”.
George Vella said the national debt nearly doubled from €2.7 billion in 1998 to nearly €5 billion last year, pointing out that projections showed this would increase by a further €770 million next year. The country had not been declared bankrupt because the vast majority of public borrowing was from local sources.
This debt had been accumulating since 1987 and not during the last three years when the world was plagued by recession. It was the result of wrong policies and unacceptable deficits. The government had failed to control this debt and did not make any effort to reduce it. Instead the government had squandered money.
The Bill requested Parliament to approve the borrowing of another €570 million by the government to balance last year’s Budget, Dr Vella said. The government had collected €67 million less in revenue than projected. The deficit rose despite the fact that the government had spent €70 million less in its recurrent expenditure and €46 million in capital expenditure.
This was evidence that government calculations had been going haywire one year after another.
In 10 years, while Malta acquired €572 million from the EU, including €46 million from funds which were supposed to be given in 2013. At the same time, Malta contributed €375 million to EU coffers. This meant a net profit of €206 million. This was a far cry from the government’s promise of netting Lm100 per year from EU funding.
Some of the homes for the elderly lacked support services, physiotherapy and occupational services. Some did not even have a full-time qualified SRN, let alone a resident doctor when these homes were fast becoming small hospitals.
He called on the government to regulate and convince contractors to provide support services. The government had to refrain from sending ill elderly patients to old peoples’ homes.
Dr Vella also called for serious monitoring on safety in working sites like quarries. There were employees working in dangerous conditions and he was convinced there were elements of corruption in the inspection of such sites. Other workers had to accept inferior conditions of work and less pay. There were even workers who had to accept wages below the minimum. He asked how many contractors who had been awarded contracts by government tenders had been stopped because they were hiring underpaid workers in unacceptable conditions.
Dr Vella requested the Finance Minister to explain what he meant by paying a social security contribution pro-rata and similarly getting social benefits on a pro-rata basis.
He said that if one qualified for a social benefit this had to be given in full and not pro-rata.
He criticised the government for pushing up VAT on tourist accommodation from five to seven per cent when the country depended on tourism. Bus fares would be higher for tourists, something which did not happen anywhere in Europe.
Government estimates did not mention any expenditure about the Valletta open-air theatre and Parliament building. Would the government borrow and raise the national debt further with these two projects?
Prices for certain medicines were cheaper because the market was flooded with generic medicines and importers had no other option but to compete.
Opposition spokesman on social policy Michael Farrugia said there was a serious lack of vision and planning throughout the health sector. Reforms needed to be made in all sectors and these should be looked at as a chain.
He expressed concern at the way Mater Dei Hospital was planned. The project cost more than the original estimate despite the fact that it was downsized with the result that there was a lack of beds.
Another plan was the introduction of a 250-bed rehabilitation centre but this did not come about. One needed to acknowledge the fact that Malta had an increasingly aging population. The elderly were dependent persons and the community care sector was not giving enough importance to them due to a lack of vision and clear policies. The country needed more rehabilitation services for the elderly, but those too lacked human resources.
The emergency department had recently become a ward with patients on a stretcher – some being left there for as long as 24 hours. One could not tell whether a ward was a female or male ward.
The oncology centre was also meant to be taken care of. Due to the fact that there was a series of infrastructural works, a great deal of time was lost and the department fell back by five years in the treating of cancer patients.
The Prime Minister had promised that the waiting list issue was meant to be tackled upon the inauguration of Mater Dei Hospital. On the contrary, this was increasing in departments such as the ophthalmology department. To solve this problem, the sum of €4 million was originally budgeted. In truth the story turned out to be different as, out of every €15, only €1 was voted for in Parliament. Without financial support, one could not solve this problem.
One had to take into account the fact that if Alzheimer’s disease, dementia and osteoporosis were left untreated, one would face greater problems at a later stage, and at a higher cost. This, in some cases might cause depression and a financial burden on the country because of the cost of medicines. Members of their families would have to stop work in order to take care of their loved ones. The number of similar situations was endless.
Malta was facing a demographic problem and the authorities needed to nip the problem in the bud. Dr Farrugia deplored the fact that fuel prices increased because the government did it consciously.
The health sector vote had been slashed by €11 million, despite the fact that the opposite was claimed.
Dr Farrugia suggested the government provide patients applying for disability benefits with a right to appeal to a panel of three specialists, whose decision would be final. There have been cases of extreme health problems, where patients were told that they could work, despite their serious illnesses.
Opposition spokesman on health, Anthony Zammit said the Budget clearly showed that promises by the government before the election were not honoured.
Even though the Nationalist media were declaring that all was going well, the people believed otherwise. The €1.16 cost of living increase was definitely not enough, and the ever-increasing costs of electricity and water were impossible to cope with. The people were being forced to pay for Enemalta’s past mismanagement.
With regards to the elderly, he said it was unacceptable that a number of medicines provided by the government were out of stock.
Before the election, the government had promised that it would reduce the rate of income tax in the first Budget after the election. Three budgets later, the government was claiming that wages could not be bettered because since this would result in loss of competitiveness.
There needed to be more number of flexi hours given to women. The government had to keep in mind that if the number of employed women rose, there would be an increase in the amount of taxes and social security contributions. Roderick Galdes (PL) said people were badly affected by the measures announced in the Budget.
While the families’ purchasing power had slipped, the government tried to give the impression that problems had risen due to international crises.
The government provided families with a cost of living increase of €1.16 while prices and government squandering kept escalating. The government preferred to spend €80 million in building a new Parliament while no one knew how much the Valletta City Gate project would cost.
Due to lack of planning, national debt had grown by 7.5 per cent compared to last year. Government officials argued that debts were made to invest in the infrastructure.
There were many problems at Mater Dei Hospital, especially in the emergency department, where patients were transferred from one ward to another.
The government was a threat to welfare benefits. It was already being suggested that pensions were not sustainable anymore.
Referring to the business sector, Mr Galdes said there was a slow down even during the Christmas period.
The increase in Mepa tariffs prejudiced business and development.
The government did not have a vision on the environment. For many people, the Mepa reform meant further bureaucracy. The government failed to address the problems of pollution and the lack of air quality.
The opposition agreed with the scheme to halt the injustice to pensioners who had been employed by the British services. It also agreed on means testing and on providing education to those earning the minimum wage.