Parliamentary Secretary Chris Said is responsible for public dialogue and a number of consultation processes. Kurt Sansone asked him about the government's handling of the water and electricity bill issue as well as complaints from his own party's backbench over lack of consultation.
You are responsible for the secretariat of public dialogue and yet the government failed miserably in its consultation process on the reform of water and electricity bills. Lawrence Gonzi even said it was one of his regrets for 2008. Why did the process fail?
I don't think it failed miserably...
Isn't the country still grappling with the issue to this day?
Yes, and it will continue to do so because this issue concerns tariffs, a type of tax you are imposing on water and electricity bills. The government knew that nobody would applaud it for the reform.
I followed all the discussions at the MCESD but even though everybody agreed with the principle that consumers should pay for what they consume, when it came to putting a price on consumption there was disagreement all round.
The government had said from the start that the tariffs would be revised every six months depending on the price of oil. Maybe this was not made clear enough.
Apart from the disagreement over what the new tariffs should have been, a number of social partners were not happy with the consultation process itself. Do you think there might have been a problem of attitude on behalf of the ministers who handled this process?
The consultation process could have been conducted in a better manner. A number of meetings were held but the social partners wanted to continue meeting. The truth is that the problem could not be left to fester.
With hindsight I believe we should have had more meetings with the MCESD and with the social partners individually.
But I have to point out that after the decision was taken, Dr Gonzi was again willing to meet the unions and changes were effected as a result.
Do you agree that one of the biggest defects was that the Resources Authority was absent from the consultation process?
The authority came into the process to verify Enemalta's workings...
But the tariffs had already been made law through a legal notice by then.
The MRA approved the legal notice.
Why was the authority not involved in the initial stages when Enemalta announced the higher tariffs?
It was not involved by Enemalta in the initial stages. But the authority verified the corporation's workings.
The new tariffs were introduced backdated to October 1 and people were already paying the higher tariffs before the MRA verified them. Why?
We must not forget that we were passing through a period where every week and every month meant increased losses for the corporation because of the record oil prices.
Last summer, crude oil was almost $150 per barrel, a record price, and every passing day contributed to heavier losses for Enemalta that had to be footed by all taxpayers irrespective of how energy-conscious they were.
This is why government was pressed to implement a cut-off date.
Did you agree with the backdating of tariffs?
This was clear from the beginning with the social partners because the price of oil was sky-high and the government could not continue subsidising the company.
The MCESD had once been described as a talking-shop. Does it have any role to play?
The MCESD is not a talking shop and it definitely has a role to play.
The MCESD has already met five times since the beginning of the year and it has discussed important issues. The MCESD is today boosted by the civil society committee and the Gozo committee to broaden its consultative base.
But apart from the MCESD I am also happy with MEUSAC, which was again set up after the last election. It is working to bring NGOs, different stakeholders and political parties together in the analysis of EU regulations.
We also set up a very successful funding unit within MEUSAC that is helping NGOs and local councils tap EU funds. The unit helps the organisations fill in the applications correctly, which is the secret of success.
The applications we have forwarded have all been approved for funding and we are now setting up a fund to help co-finance the projects of small NGOs with limited financial resources, since this is a pre-requisite for EU funds.
Ironically, various exponents on the Nationalist Party's backbench have criticised the government for not consulting it on a number of issues. One such example was the appointment of George Abela as President where MPs felt they were faced with a fait accompli. Is the government ignoring its backbench?
Definitely not. The consultation between the executive and the backbench is important. We are one team but Parliament needs to approve the laws and policies that come from the executive.
The situation has improved. The backbench is having more frequent meetings and a number of presentations have been held for them by ministers and parliamentary secretaries. I don't think it is enough, because the more we consult, the better the decisions we take.
So why is it that backbenchers are complaining?
The complaints are coming from some backbenchers who felt that they should have been consulted more or at an earlier stage of the process. The issue of when to go for a consultation process is subject to controversy even in the MCESD. Some argue that you should consult when the idea is born. However, others say that it would be unproductive at that stage when the government does not even have a framework to build upon.
I believe we should go to the consultation stage when the government has a preliminary position that would be open to change through the consultation process.
After a year of public meetings on local council reform, everything seems to have gone silent. Has the reform stalled?
Absolutely not. We had a seven-month consultation process throughout which we received thousands of suggestions from the public. Over the past two months we have been evaluating the information and have drawn up a report. There are more than 100 recommendations for changes to the law.
The finalised report is now on Cabinet's agenda and should be discussed in the coming days. Once the discussion is concluded in Cabinet the reform will be presented to Parliament.
Should local councillors be elected for three- or four-year terms?
The term of local councils is an issue to be discussed in Cabinet. There is widespread agreement that three years is too short. We still have to decide whether the term should be extended to four or five years.
What will happen to local councillors elected in June?
They will be elected for a term longer than three years but the decision on how long still has to be taken by Cabinet. In any case, there may be a period of adjustment and the term of office of some other councils will have to be extended.
Local council elections have been turned into mini-general elections every year. Will the reform do away with the annual appointment?
Many people were concerned about the fact that the country enters an electoral atmosphere every year. Even though they're local elections, many interpreted them as a general election and some, like the Labour Party, even used them as barometers as to how they would fare in a general election. Experience has shown us this is not the case. Local elections are just that: local elections.
We will be taking measures to reduce formalities such as doing away with voting documents and counting votes in the town or village itself. An extended term will also give us the possibility of holding elections once every two years.
Will votes be counted in the locality's primary school rather than in one central location?
Yes, we are evaluating the possibility of counting votes in the same place where people vote. Where there is more than one voting station, the votes will be collected in one place but still be counted in the locality.
The political parties are very suspicious of each other. Will they accept such a proposal?
This is the mentality change we need to make. They are just local elections, not national ones.
Did you have requests for new local councils to be formed?
We had around 20 requests from different zones such as Fleur-de-Lys, Bahar ic-Caghaq and Marsalforn. The counter argument is that we have too many local councils. I believe we have the right number of councils for the country's size and which correctly reflect the different identities.
Rather than increasing the number we want to give these hamlets a measure of autonomy by creating administrative committees elected by the residents themselves. These committees would administer a portion of the local council's budget dedicated for the hamlet. This would give residents in outlying areas greater control over their community but without the need to create a separate administrative body.
Your brothers were charged in court with very serious crimes. Have their actions compromised your political career?
The charges have not affected my public role as parliamentary secretary in any way. However, on a personal level, as a brother, the case has hurt me a lot. I cannot say otherwise. From day one I stayed away from the case and I will continue to stay away from it. Justice needs to take its course. The case is sub judice and I cannot comment on it.
Are your brothers getting preferential treatment because of your position?
Absolutely not. If you look at the way things developed they have not been afforded preferential treatment. I don't want them to have preferential treatment. I want justice to take its natural course and expect the case to proceed like any other.
When you were mayor of Nadur you worked to make the traditional carnival a national event in its own right, even giving it an international flavour. This year, an individual who dressed up as Christ was charged in court and given a suspended sentence. Did you agree with the charges and the sentence?
I am proud of my contribution to make the Nadur carnival the event that attracts most people to Gozo. In the past three or four years, the carnival attracted up to 25,000 people to Nadur, which provided a major boost for the Gozitan economy in winter.
What happened this year bothered me because attention was focused on those who broke the law. You will always have somebody who misbehaves or gets drunk - but these are the absolute minority. As for the person who dressed up as Christ, I consider his gesture in bad taste and he shouldn't have done it because he was offending the religious sentiments of a substantial part of the population. Apart from that he was also breaking the law.
The law barring individuals from offending the religious sentiments of others is necessary and carnival should not be an exception. And I am not only referring to the Roman Catholic faith.
On the other hand, I believe that the law barring political satire in carnival should be removed. There is nothing wrong with people satirising us politicians.
This guy was given a suspended sentence. Aren't we taking the issue too seriously given the context in which it happened?
Sentencing is in the court's jurisdiction and I will not comment on it, but it must be said that the person admitted the charges. Once he pleaded guilty to vilifying religion then the punishment is detailed in the law and it has to be applied.
What used to happen in the past with cases like these?
I have never come across somebody who dressed up as Christ at the Nadur carnival. Sometimes there were people who dressed up as nuns or priests and in these cases the police used to give them a verbal warning asking them to change their costume. If they persisted they would have been charged. I think this was a reasonable approach.
It seems that this approach was not adopted this year. Apart from the man who dressed up as Christ others dressed up as nuns were also charged in court. Was it different because the bishops spoke?
It could be the case that the bishops' statement created more awareness and since they pointed out that the law was being broken legal proceedings had to take place. However, it must be said that the police had already initiated legal proceedings against some individuals even before the bishops spoke.