Resident Parking

A recent court of appeals decision regarding the above subject raised two important issues. The court decided that the Pieta’ local council acted ultra vires when it introduced a residents’ parking scheme without the necessary permit from public authorities.

Two issues which come out of such a decision. First, that public authorities can issue permits to such schemes while the second raised the issue of the fines collected illegally by the Pieta’ local council.

From newspaper reports it was the first court which dealt with this problem. It pointed out that such schemes, though justified under certain conditions, would in themselves give preferential treatment to local citizens.

At first sight, there is nothing wrong in giving preferential treatment to citizens in the locality in which they reside. But if this is applied to all localities, we would end up in restriction of movement in Malta. The implications are serious not only to business and consumers but also to all citizens.

If such schemes become widespread, business will become localized again. The implications are that costs increase because certain economies of scale could not be implemented. The implication for consumers is that their choice will be limited as they would find it difficult to shop in another locality.

Citizens will find that they are really living not in Malta but in their home locality. The unfortunate thing is that because of local politics, at present there are already 19 localities which were given permission to introduce such schemes. Thus we find that those living in Balzan, Fontana, Floriana, Hamrun, Iklin, Mellieha, Msida, Mosta, Naxxar, San Gwann, St Julians, St Paul’s Bay, St Venera, Sliema, Swieqi, Ta’ Xbiex, Valletta, Victoria, and Vittoriosa are being given preferential treatment over the rest of the citizens because while they can park freely in other localities, they find their parking reserved when they return home.

The way forward is not to make such schemes more widespread but to do away with such schemes. They should only be introduced because of security or humanitarian reasons. When such schemes are approved, the authority issuing the permit should make a public announcement giving the specific reason for restricting the freedom of movement of the other citizens. These permits should only be issued after clear criteria are defined and issues. It is pathetic that while we are giving such importance to the Eurpean Parliament elections, we are permitting that one of the four freedoms, that of movement, on which the EU is based, is being tramped upon by the local authorities who seem to disregard such freedom with impunity as there is neither transparency nor accountability.

The second issue is what is going to happen to the fines illegally collected. Should they be returned to their rightful owners? A similar controversy cropped up when the government was put under pressure due to the controversial, for many illegal, VAT collected on car registration.

Those supporting the Government’s position found that they could not justify such a position and thus they reverted on an argument that if it was found that the VAT collected was mot done legally, the taxes collected should not be returned to their rightful owners as this would create an outflow in the government’s finances when we least could afford it.

But is such a position tenable? I don’t think so as otherwise the same argument could be used to justify any position taken, legal or not, by any authority in collecting money under the pretext of taxes, fines, administrative charge or any other name, with impunity. The reason is that even if the authority is found acting ultra vires, there will be no need to refund the money illegally collected. Its duty would be just to stop charging the illegal fee.

Would Mr Citizen accept the position that if the Inland Revenue Department has been found to be acting illegally as it is charging him a high income tax rate, this Department will only have the duty not to continue charging him this high rate but will not have any right to be refunded the illegally collected taxes?!

Put money where your mouth is!

Recently, Cherie Blair visited Malta and spoke at a conference 'Balancing Family and Career'. This is a subject about which we hear extensively especially when elections are around.

Since elections are part and parcel of our yearly calendar of national activities, the subject is a popular subject for conferences. Yet, unfortunately, we always tend to discuss this subject out of context about what is really going on in Malta. There are two issues that are affecting the scenario but which unfortunately are completely disregarded. I am referring to the working time directive and the maternity leave.

On these issues, we tend to differ strongly from the European tradition where health and safety issues are high on the agenda and, also where the state has a stronger commitment to ensure the welfare of the workers plus maintaining a stronger family through work-life balance.

If we take the working time directive, we tend to forget the objective behind this directive. This directive is intended to limit the working hours for health and safety reasons. There are also repercussions regarding the balance that is needed between work and family responsibilities. Yet, the effort by the EU Parliament to introduce this aspect in a more direct way, did not find the support it needed in the Council of Ministers. Basically the Directive tries to limit the working week to 48 hours per week. But the present Directive contains an opt-out clause to extend this limit to 60 hours per week if the worker agrees and in some cases even to 65 hours per week. In effect the working week limit is 60 hours per week as in reality the worker does not have the economic power to refuse if the employer so demands especially where the workers are not organised.

The recent EU Parliament’s effort was to make this Directive effective through the removal of the opt-out clause. There was a strong opposition from the Maltese government, among others, to ensure that the opt-out clause is not removed. Locally, this position has had a widespread support from all sides of the spectrum including unions. This was in spite of the fact that our unions were affiliated to the ETUC which strongly opposed the opt-out clause. The GWU’s position was closest to that of the ETUC as it supported the position that the opt-out clause could only be operational if it were operated through collective bargaining by a trade union on behalf of the workers. The idea is to regulate this opt-out clause so as not to endanger flexibility while guaranteeing health and safety as well as a better work-life balance.

This is only the surface as new practices are being introduced which flagrantly breach this Directive. A case in point regards the conditions under which the security guards are employed by certain companies. In order to try to breach this Directive, the same employee is employed by several companies owned by the same employer. Such employees are made to work for long hours in excess of even the 60 hours, let alone the 48 hours stipulated by the Directive. As a result, the employer simply gets the cake and eats it as this practice also enables the employer not to pay any overtime.

The question begs itself. Are such practices and our stand at the EU level in line with the balance that needs to exist between work and family commitments? And if they are not, why wasn’t any pressure made on the Maltese government to change its EU position and stop such practices?

If we take the other issue, that of maternity leave, the proposition is to extend the present period by another four weeks. Again the main purpose of this extension is to bring a better balance between family and career commitments. Yet again, our position opposes this extension of the maternity leave by another four weeks.

What is the present position regarding maternity leave? It is important to see the wider perspective especially since the main opposition to both initiatives comes from the government and the employers on the pretext that it is hampering our competitiveness. This argument is wrong as competitiveness will not improve through bad conditions of work or by letting wages fall, reducing workers’ vocation leave, abolishing Christmas parties for workers or reducing the work-life balance – all characteristics of cheap labour.

Competitiveness is simply not based on cheap labour but rather on highly skilled labour, a highly motivated labour force, innovativeness, and a better work-life balance to increase the labour force itself and participation in the labour market. These, together with other important factors, including a reduced government budget and an innovative government which can identify our opportunities and markets where we enjoy a comparative advantage, create an environment which attracts new investments.

Apart from this, everyone knows that the amount of maternity leave taken in private industry is very low. This does not result due to lower fertility of the workers in the private industry but rather due to devious methods used by employers to have such workers retire from the labour market and thus eliminating the need of maternity leave.

It is important to look at the issue of competitiveness as it is the main reason that is being given locally to block such changes and win the public opinion to such a conservative stand.

Member State	Maternity Leave	Competitiveness Ranking
Austria	16 weeks	14
Belgium	15 weeks	19
Bulgaria	315 days	76
Czech Rep	28 weeks	33
Germany	14 weeks	7
Denmark	18 weeks	3
Estonia	140 days	32
Greece	17 weeks	67
Spain	16 weeks	29
Finland	105 days	6
France	16 weeks	16
Hungary	24 weeks	62
Ireland	42 weeks	22
Italy	5 months	49
Lithuania	126 days	44
Latvia	112 days	54
Malta	14 weeks	52
Netherlands	16 weeks	8
Poland	18 weeks	53
Portugal	120 days	43
Romania	126 days	68
Sweden	18 months	4
Slovenia	105 days	42
Slovak Rep	28 weeks	46
UK	52 weeks	1
Maternity Leave: Social Agenda 19, Dec 08 Competitiveness Ranking 2008/9: Global Competitiveness Report, WEF

The above table shows the number of maternity weeks that is given at law in 25 EU countries. Cyprus and Luxemburg are not included as they did not submit the information. If one analyses the competitiveness score with the number of weeks (maternity leave) one finds that the correlation coefficient is very low which indicates that competitiveness depends on other issues rather than the number of maternity weeks given. Thus the argument of competitiveness does not hold water.

But what are the arguments in favour of increasing maternity leave? At a time when we need to increase the employment rates, especially among the female population, women continue to represent a vast untapped potential to increase the labour force. Such measures as maternity leave will make work and family commitments more compatible and women would not need to decide either in favour of work or the family. Thus women participation in the labour market – a commitment we have under the Lisbon Agenda - would increase.

However, Ms Blair provided us with another justification. According to newspaper reports:

She admitted that in her case, she did not take much maternity leave, so as to prove that she could beat the men at their own game. But that, she said, was foolish, as it reinforced the obstacles which women faced. Maternity, she said, was special, and required special measures.
1 & 2 April 2009

It was a positive move that Ms Blair was hosted by the Prime Minister and his wife. I really hope that this might signify a change especially in government policies to really enhance the work-family balance. If we take this path, finally we might be putting our money where our mouth is!

Tghid Ghaliex

Dan l-ahhar kien hemm tlett okkazjonijiet li jindikaw il-protezzjoni li d-Divizjoni tal-Konsumaturi qed tipprovdi bit-taxxi taghna. Id-Divizjoni tal-Konsumaturi hi wahda mir-regolaturi li twaqqfet biex thares id-drittijiet tal-konsumaturi. Illum fejn il-kummerc jahdem bis-sistema tas-Suq, l-importanza ta’ dawn ir-regolaturi kibret ghaliex huma l-unika mekkanizmu pubbliku li ghad fadal biex jipprotegi lill-konsumaturi mill-eccessi tas-Suq.

L-ewwel okkazjoni kienet il-kwistjoni tal-hobz. Dan kien gie liberalizzat. Dan ifisser li l-prezzijiet jistghu jiccaqilqu minghajr il-htiega ta’ permessi mill-Gvern. Id-Divizjoni tal-Konsumaturi harget stqarrija. Jien hsibt li fl-ahhar id-Divizjoni kienet iccaqalqet biex tinforza l-htiega li l-hobz ikun immarkat kull kilo u li l-konsumaturi jhallsu skond l-uzin. Izda l-istqarrija kienet biex tinfurmana li issa l-prezz jista’ jiccaqlaq – xi haga li konna nafu. U ballec hekk gara, ghaliex lanqas lahqu ghaddew ftit jiem li l-prezz tela’.

Li jistaqsu l-konsumaturi, imma kif kull haga li tigi liberalizzata f’Malta, din mal-ewwel toghla? Il-kelma liberalizzazzjoni f’Malta llum saret tfisser gholi fil-prezzijiet minflok li s-suq jahdem ahjar ghall-konsumaturi. Dan ma garax biss f’dan is-settur, izda gara f’kull settur specjalment fis-settur bankarju.

Wara nqalghet kontroversja zghira jekk il-prezz hux ikkontrollat jew le. Il-Ministru Fenech qalilna li d-Divizjoni ser tinvestiga biex tara kif qed jahdem dan is-suq u li l-prezzijiet qed jingabru. Ghandi zewg diffikultajiet. L-ewwel, jekk qatt xi darba hux ser inkunu nafu r-rizultat. Darba diga’ kellna l-weghda li d-Divizjoni kienet ser tinvestiga c-charges li qed ihallsu l-genituri fi skejjel privati bhall-uniformijiet. S’issa ghadna ma smajna xejn minkejja li ghaddiet aktar minn sena. Tghid ghaliex?

It-tieni diffikulta’ tieghi hi kif tista’ tqabbel il-prezzijiet kif gie mwieghed? Fil-prezent, la l-Gvern u wisq anqas il-konsumaturi ma jistghu jqabblu l-prezz. Dan ghaliex il-prezz hu ta’ kull hobza u mhux kull kilo. Issa peress li l-hobza tvarja fl-uzin, ma tistax tqabbel il-prezzijiet. Hu ghalhekk li dan is-suq la qed jahdem u lanqas ser jahdem tajjeb. Sintendi, hawn il-konsumaturi ser ikollhom ihallsu ghal dan. Biex inkun preciz, s’issa naf b’hanut wiehed li qed juri l-prezz u l-uzin li suppost kull hobza fiha. Izda, peress li ma hemmx il-prezz kull kilo ta’ hobz kif titlob il-ligi, xorta ma tistax tqabbel il-prezz mad-daqqa t’ghajn.

L-inqas li stennejt minghand id-Divizjoni hu li jaraw li kull hanut juri l-prezz tal-hobz kull kilo. Bhal ma qal il-President tal-Koperattiva, issa l-hobz qed jinbiegh bhall-haxix. U hekk ghandu jinbiegh. Il-prezz ikun immarkat kull kilo u int thallas skond l-uzin li jkun fiha l-hobza. Izda ghal xi raguni d-Divizjoni dan ma tridx tara li dan isir. Tghid ghaliex?

It-tieni kwistjoni kienet dwar it-tariffi tad-dawl u l-ilma. Il-Membru Palamentari Joe Mizzi, ipprezenta zewg protesti gudizzjarji fejn insista li l-ilment li għamel lid-Direttur tal-Ufficcju tal-Kompetizzjoni Gusta biex jithassru l-avvizi legali dwar it-tariffi l-godda tad-dawl u l-ilma, huwa kaz urgenti li jimmerita azzjoni immedjata minhabba li tezisti sitwazzjoni li hija ta’ pregudizzju serju u rreparabbli ghall-interess ekonomiku generali. Wara zmien waslet ir-risposta. Fi ftit kliem, jekk fhimt sew dak li gie rrappurtat, din kienet tghid li Joe Mizzi ma mexiex mal-proceduri stabiliti. Ghalija din kienet ta’ sorpriza ghaliex jien hsibt li r-risposta kienet ser tkun li wara investigazzjoni, ma kien hemm l-ebda ksur tal-ligi tal-kompetizzjoni gusta jew li azzjoni diga’ ttiehdet. Bir-risposta li nghatat fil-qorti, sal-lum ma nafx jekk id-Divizjoni ghamlitx investigazzjoni. Tajjeb li nghidu li skond il-ligi d-Direttur setghet ghamlet investigazzjoni minn jeddha. Dan ma jidhirx li gara. Tghid ghaliex?

It-tielet kwistjoni li nqalghet kienet dwar il-prezz tal-medicini. Wara li kien hemm hafna pressjoni pubblika dwar il-prezzijiet tal-medicini, il-Gvern kien waqqaf kumitat biex jara li l-prezzijiet huma ‘fair and just’. Dan il-kumitat kien ghamel zmien jahdem u kien wasal biex l-ewwel passi li kellhom jittiehdu kienet li ghallanqas jekk ma nassigurawx li dawn huma ‘fair and just’, nassiguraw li l-prezzijiet huma fil-medja ta’ prezzijiet tal-pajjizi tal-Unjoni Ewropea.

Il-metodu li kellu jintuza biex niehdu l-medja kien li ntghazlu 9 pajjizi – tlieta li kellhom il-prezzijiet taghhom normalment l-aktar gholjin, 3 pajjizi li normalment kellhom il-prezzijiet taghhom baxxi u tliet pajjizi li normalment ikollhom il-prezzijiet taghhom fin-nofs. Kienet ittiehdet lista ta’ medicinali u bdew jigu kkomparati l-prezzijiet taghhom. Dan ix-xoghol kien fdat lid-Divizjoni tal-Konsumaturi. Safejn naf jien kien hemm tnejn min-nies li kienu qed jahdmu fuqha.

Il-mistoqsija tieghi hi ghaliex kien hemm daqstant ftit nies li qed jahdmu fuqha specjalment meta kwistjoni bhal din ghandha daqshekk importanza. Dan ghaliex is-sahha hi wahda mill-aktar affarijiet importanti u jidher li resqin lejn sitwazzjoni fejn il-pazjenti mhux ser ikollhom l-ebda ghajnuna biex jiffinanzjaw din l-ispiza. Tghid ghaliex?

Difficli li nkunu nafu ghaliex ghax ma jkunx hemm twegibiet. Ghalhekk nappella lill-Awditur biex jara ghaliex u jinfurmana. Ma nistennewx rapport bhal tas-soltu li jsemmu l-hela biss. Irridu nkunu nafu jekk ahniex qed niehdu ghal dak li qed inhallsu ghalih meta kkomparat mal-Office of Fair Trading Ingliz. Hekk biss forsi inkunu nafu ghaliex.

Published in Torca 19th April 2009

Missed Opportunities

Some two weeks ago, I attended a conference “Dialogues in the Western Mediterranean – Regions & Civil Society toward decentralized cooperation and participating democracy”. This took place in Genoa, Italy and was organised by the Commissione Europa, Rapresntanza in Italia and the Reggione Liguria.

It took place in the renovated old harbour. It is a marvellous lesson of how to preserve a harbour while renovating it to have new uses. Its success can be easily seen by the fact that it is estimated that over 3.8 million visitors come to share this experience each year. The conference hall was located in the old cotton stores.

The first part of the conference was dedicated to the usual speeches including a video link with the Italian Foreign Minister Scotti. Most of the speakers came from Liguria region – a region viewed by many as highly unsympathetic to immigration. I must admit this surprised me at first, since immigration, though not in the spotlight of the conference, was surely to feature. In fact, this issue featured in the background throughout the whole conference.

But I was surprised with the sensitivity shown by speakers, mostly Italians, to immigration. They pointed out to the large number of Italians who immigrated both to the USA and to South America when Italy was facing economic hardship. This point was made for example, by Alessandro Repetto, President of the Genoa Province when he mentioned that his grandparents were immigrants in the USA.

The second point that surprised me was that Genoa looks at the Mediterranean Sea as the platform of expansion to its wealth through trade. This is in contrast to us, Maltese, who disregard the Mediterranean and look to Central Europe. We continually complain that we are an island surrounded by the sea and cut off from continental Europe whereas the Genoese look at the Mediterranean as an opportunity. If we were entrepreneurial like the Genoese, we would continually use our strategic position in the Mediterranean, our Mediterranean culture and our Semitic language to enhance our economic well-being especially nurturing the contacts with the other Mediterranean countries.

The third point was the fact that Genoa’s businessmen look at North Africa as the latest opportunity for them to expand. The same can be said to the Universita’ di Genoa which through collaboration with North African universities are attracting North African students to its campus. Again, this contrasts with what happens locally. Instead of looking at the North African market for opportunities by exploiting our relative advantage, we tend to look at the European markets where we face huge relative disadvantages.

Unfortunately, I attended the workshop regarding culture and education. This was one of the worst workshops I ever attended. It was not the organisers’ fault. It was the participants who created a sense of negativity which dominated the whole workshop. There was a speech by Professor Aziz, from the Mediterranean Observatory, who emphasised the need to coordinate the projects between the Europe and the North African countries as the resources were limited. One of the Tunisian delegates then objected to the fact that there was no Arabic translation and continued to put forward the name of an Italian girl as rapporteur instead of the one chosen by the organisers. The Chair said that he did not find any objection even though a rapporteur was already selected. From then on, the meeting degenerated rapidly with everyone speaking his piece and without any effort to relate it either to what was said by other people or to the subject. Two Italian girls were the most violent in their speeches as they were notoriously uncompromising and also provocative. On the other hand, one could also see that the priorities of the northern bank of the Mediterranean are totally different from those of the south. This is in regard to NGOs.

Those from the North Africa had two basic needs – peace and liberty. They want peace in the Middle East and liberty at home. They cannot understand the EU. On the one hand, the EU invites them for such meetings to get a dialogue going. They see these meetings as an effort to find congruencies and set up new relations which are reciprocally acceptable to both sides. Yet, they see that the political agenda of the EU countries as already set in two important respects. The EU supports Israel most probably because of geopolitical reasons and because of its anti-Zionist past. Thus they see the European interests as simply building a bridge for economic reasons. The EU is also interested in maintaining stability in North Africa and thus is supporting the governments including those which do not promote democracy. This is usually effective under the pretext of subsidiarity and tends to link the problem of democracy in these countries to Islam.

This last point was reflected in the concluding session where a Tunisian female NGO representative asserted (like many others) that the problem is not Islam. Islam is not violent, antidemocratic or repressive. It is many of the governments supported by the EU that are. To understand this point, one has to think of the Roman Catholic Church. It is undemocratic in its structure and nature but can it be accused of fermenting the Catholic/Orange split in Northern Ireland simply because it is so? Can the Catholic Church be accused, as Islam is, as being violent? The same point concerns democracy. Though it is an antidemocratic institution, it does not mean that where one finds lack of democracy this can be attributed to the Catholic Church.

Two other points that came out of the conference were the fact that the Italians are doing their best to integrate the immigrants especially the second generation immigrants. Some were asking whether the time has arrived to grant electoral rights to immigrants. The second generation of immigrants, whether legal or not, presents us with a big problem and shows our short-sightedness as Maltese. This problem will haunt us in the future as we’re doing nothing about it.

The second was that the main problem with immigration is not terrorism, religion or intolerance but gross mutual ignorance on both sides. I believe that this is also the main problem in Malta. We don’t know anything about these immigrants while they do not know anything about us. I know that I am generalising, as some NGOs are working with these illegal immigrants and running programmes which try to inform these immigrants about the ways Western society is structured and run. Unfortunately, these courses are being run for those with refugee status and are waiting their turn to leave Malta either to the United States or to other European countries. Thus the benefit will not be reaped by us but by others.

I was the only person from Malta. I’m sure that others were invited but did not attend. I believe that we’re missing out on most important things. It is easy and useless to criticize the EU for lack of sensitivity to the problems that immigration presents to our country. We need to ask some serious questions like - What are we doing to understand the roots of the problem we’re facing and also to bring forward initiatives to deal with these problems in a practical, humane way?

The last observation is that many Maltese are sensitive that many nations are being successful in taking most of North African market. We tend to envy them and yet do nothing. The way forward to exploit the benefits of this market is to take the plunge into this market, establish and nurture all types of contacts. We simply cannot continue to miss out at the opportunities!

Il-ħmar jikkmanda lil denbu

Is-saga tat-tariffi tad-dawl u l-ilma tidher li ma tista’ tispiċċa qatt. Jekk kien hemm xi ħaġa li ħawdet lil kul­ħadd – għax ħadd ma kien jaf fejn qie­għed – kienet din il-kwistjoni. Dan it-taħwid jidher li ma jista’ jispiċċa qatt.

L-aħħar żviluppi li kien hemm f’din it-taħwida jitfgħu dawl ġdid ta’ kif saru l-affarijiet. Żvilupp li kellna dan l-aħħar kien id-dħul fix-xena tar-Regolatur – l-Awtorità dwar ir-Riżorsi.

L-ew­wel, għal xhur sħaħ din kienet siekta – qisu dawk l-affarijiet li kienu għaddejjin ma kellhomx x’jaqsmu magħha. Wara l-MRA iddaħlet mill-Gvern stess meta l-PM bagħat lill-11-il unjin għandha, wara li dan kien qiegħed jużurpa l-awtorità tagħha għal xhur sħaħ.

Il-11-il unjin bdew jistaqsu lil din l-awtorità dettalji dwar kif il-Gvern wasal għat-tariffi l-ġodda. Biex iraqqgħu l-pannu bil-qara ħamra qabbdu lil kumpanija ta’ ’accountants’ biex tagħmel rapport. Ma kinitx sorpriża li din il-kumpanija qablet mal-kumpanija li kienet tqabbdet mill-Gvern għax it-tnejn huma kumpaniji tal-’accountants’. B’hekk, l-Awtorità qalet, il-kalkoli tat-tariffi li kien ikkalkula l-Gvern kienu tajbin.

Biss din il-bużżieqa mal-ewwel infaqgħet mill-11-il unjin għax dawn, megħjunin mill-ekonomista l-Professur Edward Scicluna, argumentaw li l-metodu jrid ikun differenti minn dak li jikkalkolaw l-’accountants’. Għal dan l-MRA ma kelliex risposta u wara taħditiet oħrajn mal-istess unjins kien jidher li l-Awtorità se tissuġġerixxi lill-Gvern biex dan ibiddel it-tariffi. Iżda lanqas kienu għaddew tliet sigħat wara li l-unjins ħabbru dan, li l-Awtorità ċaħdet li waslet għal dan il-ftehim. Kulħadd għandu moħħ biex jifhem x’seta’ ġara minn wara l-kwinti!



Konsultazzjoni

Hawn wasal l-aħħar żvilupp. L-Enemalta bagħtet numru ta’ principji fuq xiex bi ħsiebha tibbaża t-tariffi fil-futur.

L-Awtorità, minflok qabblet dawn il-principji mal-principji li suppost żviluppat biex tiffissa r-rati, reġgħet waqfet milli tiffissa rati ġodda bl-iskuza li hemm bżonn ta’ konsultazzjoni pubblika. Il-konsultazzjoni kien missa ilha li saret. Barra minhekk tista’ ssir indipendament mid-deċiżjonijiet li għandhom jittieħdu fuq it-tariffi.

Din is-sitwazzjoni tikxef ċerti affarijiet:

• Li l-MRA stess, wara dawn is-snin kollha mwaqqfa, għadha ma żvi­­lup­patx prinċipji biex tkun tista’ tirregola t-tariffi f’dan is-suq. Il-probabbiltà hi li la m’għandhiex prinċipji biex tibbaża t-tariffi għal dan is-suq, wisq inqas għandha għal swieq oħrajn. Jekk hu hekk, f’oqsma oħrajn bħal ma hu l-gas, il-konsumaturi, meta se jkollhom jiffaċċjaw monopolju privat minflok wieħed pubbliku, se jerġgħu jsibu regolatur impotenti;

• Li l-MRA qiegħda tagħmel il-konsul­taz­zjoni, issa wara li l-froġa diġà saret. Dan aktar qiegħed iqajjem suspetti li din il-konsultazzjoni hi waħda finta biex jintrebaħ iż-żmien u jkun hemm aktar direzzjoni mill-Gvern;

• Li l-MRA, wara dawn is-snin kollha minflok qiegħda tidderiġi s-suq hi, qiegħda titmexxa minn l-uniku operatur – il-Gvern, permezz tal-Enemalta. Dan ifisser li minflok ħallasna t-taxxi biex ikollna regolatur li jipproteġi l-interessi tagħna, ħallasna biex ir-regolatur iħares l-interessi tal-Gvern li ħatru;

• Li l-konsumaturi qegħdin jiffaċċjaw sitwazzjoni fejn m’għandhomx wisq għażla ta’ proposti għax dawn il-proposti ġejjin mill-uniku operatur u ma fihomx bilanċ. Li kien hemm principji oħrajn stabiliti, in-nies kien ikollhom xelta akbar ta’ għażliet.



Il-proposti tal-Enemalta

L-Enemalta (?!) iddefinixxit ir-rwol tar-Regolatur bħala wieħed li jara li l-Ene­malta ma tagħmilx profitti li mhux raġonevoli. Dan mhux ir-rwol tar-Regolatur. Bħal ma kiteb il-Profes­sur Scicluna, ir-rwol hu dak li tara li jkun hemm kompetizzjoni u t-tħaris tal-konsumaturi. Fejn ma hemmx kompetizzjoni trid tara li l-prezzijiet ikunu komparabbli ma’ dawk fejn hemm. Jekk l-MRA tadotta dan ir-rwol, ma tkun qiegħda tagħmel xejn għajr li tapprova l-inefficjenza li dawk li jmexxu l-Enemalta qatt ma ħadu ħsieb u tkun abbandunat ir-rwol proprja tagħha.

F’dan il-każ, aħjar ma jkollna l-ebda regolatur milli jkollna struttura li tagħti impressjoni li tkun qed tħares l-interessi tal-konsumaturi u fil-fatt ma tkun xejn għajr ‘rubber stamp’ ta’ dak li jrid il-Gvern per­mezz tal-Enemalta.

L-Enemalta ma tistax tagħmel telf. Naqblu, iżda dan isir billi tiżdied l-effiċjenza u mhux billi ngħollu l-kontijiet tan-nies. L-Enemalta trid tirkupra l-ispejjeż kollha. Jekk isir hekk, tkun qiegħda terġa’ tintuża l-formula preżenti. Il-prezz filwaqt li jrid jirifletti l-ispejjez, ma jistax jiddependi fuq­hom. Il-prezz irid ikun simili għall-prez­zijiet li tkun qiegħda tuża kumpa­ni­ja simili tal-Enemalta iżda li tkun qiegħda taħdem f’suq kompetittiv. Hu hawnekk li joħorġu l-ineffiċjenzi. Hu dan il-prezz li jrid jintuza biex l-Enemalta taħdem biex tnaqqas dawn l-ineffiċjenzi.

Dan il-prezz ikun qiegħed ineħħi l-ineffiċjenzi kollha. Bil-metodu preżen­ti hu impossibbli li tkun taf fejn huma l-ineffiċjenzi. Eżempju, il-prezz li bih jinxtara ż-żejt. Dan hu l-aħjar prezz li kien hemm jew li seta’ jinkiseb? Bil-metodu preżenti ta’ kif jin­ħad­mu t-tariffi, jinxtara kemm jinxtara, anki jekk min kien responsabbli ma mexiex tajjeb, il-konsumaturi se jkollhom iħallsu għalih. Dawn l-ineffiċjenzi moħbijin jittieħdu ukoll jekk il-prezz ikun dak li semmejt aktar ‘il fuq.

Biex jitfgħu dell ikrah fuq il-ħaddiema u l-GWU, issemma li dawk l-ineffiċenzi li jinħolqu minħabba ftehim kollettiv ma jkunux inkluzi. Hawn wieħed jistaqsi, minn meta ftehim kollettiv sar iwassal għal ineffiċjenzi. Ftehim kollettiv sura ta’ nies suppost li jwassal għal aktar produttività tal-ħaddiema filwaqt li jġib ġustizzja fuq il-post tax-xogħol. Jekk l-Enemalta tidħol fi ftehim kollettiv bħal dan, id-diriġenti tal-Enemalta jridu jġorru r-responsabbiltà għax qatt ma misshom iffirmaw ftehim kollettiv bħal dan.

Hemm il-principju li l-konsumaturi għandhom iħallsu għal dak l-ammont li huma jikkunsmaw. Prinċipju tajjeb iżda mhux kif qiegħed jitħaddem illum. Hemm żewġ raġunijiet. L-ew­wel għandek l-istima. Bis-sistema tal-istima dan mhux dejjem jiġri speċ­jal­ment jekk fiż-żmien li l-ammont ikun qiegħed jiġi stmat ikun hemm bidla fil-prezz. It-tieni, il-logħob bil-kontijiet hemm bżonn jinqata’ darba għal dejjem. Il-perjodi sti­pu­lati meta għandhom joħorgu l-kontijiet għandhom jinżammu. Il-kontijiet m’għandhomx jinħargu skond il-ka­len­darju politiku.



Bilanċ mal-konsumatur

Iżda biex ikun hemm ġustizzja, il-konsumatur għandu jiġi ggarantit li jingħata kumpens meta ma jingħatax servizz tajjeb jew meta ssir ħsara lill-konsumatur. L-MRA, u mhux l-Enemalta, trid tistabbilixxi standards ta’ kemm irid ikun il-qtugħ ta’ elettriku permessibbli matul sena u anki l-massimu ta’ qtugħ f’lokalità waħda. L-istess meta ssir ħsara lill-konsumaturi, l-MRA trid tistabbilixxi hi l-kriterji meta għandu jkun hemm kumpens.

F’każi bħal dawn irid jinstab mezz biex il-konsumaturi jkunu jistgħu jieħdu raġun b’mod imparzjali u b’ħeffa. Illum, l-Enemalta hi sew il-prosekutur u l-ġurija.

Dan il-mekkanizmu għandu ukoll jintuża meta jkun hemm xi kwistjoni dwar il-konsum. Mhux sew li l-konsumatur għandu jkun iffaċċjat mit-theddida li se jispiċċa mingħajr ser­-vizz meta jkollu kwistjoni dwar l-ammont. Għalhekk il-ħtiega ta’ mezz effettiv u mgħaġġel biex jiġi deċiż minn għandu raġun.

Tul dan iż-żmien għandu jkun hemm moratorju ta’ meta l-konsumaturi għandhom iħallsu, speċjalment meta l-ammont ikun kbir. Dawn il-kwistjonijiet jinqalgħu ħafna drabi minħabba ‘meters’ li ma jaħdmux jew ma jkunux qegħdin jaħdmu sew. Hu importanti sew għall-konsumatur u sew għall-Enemalta li kwistjonijiet bħal dawn jinqatgħu malajr kemm jista’ jkun.



Min qed imexxi lil min?

L-aħħar parti tal-lista li qiegħda tippro­poni l-Enemalta fil-fatt tiżvela min verament għandu l-poter li jidde­ċiedi. Dan għax l-Enemalta qiegħda tirriserva d-dritt li minħabba raġunijiet ta’ ġustizzja socjali jew ta’ interess nazzjonali tista’ ma timxix mal-prinċipji proposti minnha stess.

Dan minn meta l-Enemalta saret tiddeċiedi hi meta jidħlu prinċipji ta’ ġustizzja soċjali jew raġunijiet ta’ interess nazzjonali? Hawn joħrog ċar li l-id wara dawn il-proposti hi dik tal-Gvern.

Jekk dan hu hekk, ifisser dak li jemmnu ħafna – li r-regolaturi f’Malta huma daħka fil-wiċċ għax huma biss paraventu tal-Gvern. Hu r-regolatur li għandu jkollu d-dritt li jippermetti, għal żmien definit, li l-Enemalta ma tużax il-prinċipji stabbiliti mir-regolatur.

Dan għandu jsir wara li jkun hemm talba u raġunijiet mogħtijin li jkunu aċċettabbli. Ir-regolatur, min-naħa tiegħu, għandu jxandar din id-deċiżjoni u r-raġunijiet li wassluh jie­ħu din id-deċiżjoni u t-tul ta’ żmien.

Dan ma jnaqqas xejn mill-poteri tal-Gvern li jieħu d-deċiżjonijiet tiegħu. Dawn iżda għandhom ukoll jittieħdu quddiem il-Parlament biex jerġa’ jkun hemm skrutinju. Hekk jimxu l-affarijiet b’mod sura ta’ nies. B’dawn il-me­todi nkunu ukoll qegħdin insaħħu d-demokrazija għax nissalvagwardjaw il-kontabilità, it-trasparenza u li ħadd ma jkollu poter assolut.

L-Enemalta qiegħda tirriserva d-dritt li tiżviluppa principji ġodda u li se tavża lir-Regolatur bihom. Hu dmir tar-Regolatur li jiżviluppa prinċipji ġodda billi jkun sensittiv tar-riper­kussjonijiet tad-deċiżjonijiet tiegħu.

L-MRA ma tistax toqgħod ċiċċi bil-qiegħda u tistenna l-bajtra taqa’ f’ħalqha. Trid tqum mir-raqda li ilha fiha minn mindu twaqqfet, tieħu l-inizjattiva hi, u tara li l-istakeholders kollha jkollhom ’fair deal’. L-Enemalta tista’ tressaq proposti għal konsi­derazzjoni bħal ma jistgħu jagħmlu stakeholders oħrajn.



Kif nistgħu nimxu ’l quddiem?

Hemm numru ta’ affarijiet li hemm bżonn jirranġaw ruħhom. Fost dawn insibu dawn li ġejjin:

• Il-Gvern għandu jbiddel il-liġi tal-MRA biex din tiġi assigurata l-indipendenza tagħha. F’artiklu li deher f’it-Torċa xi xhur ilu, kont urejt xi nuqqasijiet fil-liġi li jorbtu dan ir-Regolatur mal-karru tal-Gvern. Barra dan għandu jkun hemm ċar li r-Regolatur għandu d-dmir li jħares id-drittijiet tal-konsumaturi.

Jekk dan ma jsirx, hu dmir tal-Membri Parlamentari Ewropej Maltin li jressqu lment formali lill-UE. Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea permezz tad-DG Kompetizzjoni tista’ tgħin ħafna. Naf li dan id-DG, ftit aktar minn sena ilu, beda jara kif ir-regolaturi fil-pajjiżi tal-UE qegħdin jaħdmu, peress li dawn huma t-tarka prinċipali f’dinja fejn is-suq hu l-bażi tal-ekonomija.

Tibdil fil-liġi biss mhu se jġib xejn ‘il quddiem. In-nies li jmexxu dawn ir-regolaturi huma l-qofol jekk ikollniex regolaturi sura ta’ nies jew pupazzi tal-gvern li poġġihom. Tajjeb li biex inpoġġu nies fuq dawn ir-regolaturi nużaw il-wegħda li kien għamel il-Partit Nazzjonalista qabel l-aħħar elezzjoni. Nemmen li jekk tintuża tajjeb din il-proposta, ikollna nies li jistgħu jassiguraw li l-konsumaturi għandhom ’fair deal’ filwaqt li tiżdied l-effiċjenza fl-Enemalta.

Li hemm bżonn huma nies li huma professjonisti – li minkejja l-politika tagħhom lesti li jagħmlu dmirhom. Irridu niftakru li l-konsumaturi huma sew Nazzjonalisti u sew Laburisti. Jekk ikun hemm xi ħaġa li tolqot ħażin lill-konsumaturi tkun qiegħda tolqot iż-żewġ naħat. Fuq kollox, il-prova ta’ kull regolatur hi waħda – jekk hux lest li jigdem l-id li titimgħu?!

Pass ieħor hu li r-regolaturi, f’dan il-kaz l-MRA, jibda joħroġ standards għall-Enemalta u entitajiet oħrajn li jaqgħu taħtu fuq diversi affarijiet.

Fil-kaz tal-Enemalta jrid jara kif se jiġu stabiliti l-prezzijiet kif semmejna aktar ‘il fuq. Il-metodu jrid ikun ċar u li jirrifletti l-prezzijiet tal-enerġija f’suq fejn hemm il-kompetizzjoni. Dan għandu jgħodd ukoll għal WSC. Issa hu ż-żmien li nagħmluh u mhux meta tinqala’ kwistjoni minħabba xi żieda kbira fil-prezzijiet. Hemm standards oħrajn, per eżempju, b’kemm hi obbligata l-WSC li taqta’ l-ħela ta’ ilma fis-sistema tad-distribuzzjoni tagħha. Hemm ħafna aktar standards li hemm bżonn jidħlu biex nassiguraw entitajiet li jaħdmu b’effiċjenza, filwaqt li jkun hemm ġustizzja mal-konsumaturi sew bħala konsumaturi diretti u anki ‘taxpayers’.

Hemm affarijiet oħrajn li hemm bżonn jidħlu fis-seħħ. Per eżempju, għaliex m’għandux ikun hemm rap­preżentanti tal-konsumaturi fuq il-bord tal-MRA? Hu b’hekk li jista’ jkun hemm aktar ħeġġa min-naħa tal-MRA biex tidba taħdem b’mod effiċjenti.

Il-Parlament, min-naħa tiegħu, irid jagħmel sehemu ukoll. Hemm bżonn li terġa’ tibda tiddaħħal il-prattika li min qiegħed imexxi dawn ir-regolaturi jagħti rendikont pubbliku anki quddiem il-Parlament. Dan għandu jkollu Kumitati tal-Kamra li jara dawn ir-regolaturi kif qegħdin jaħdmu. Sew ic-Chairman u sew ic-CEO għandhom jidhru quddiem dawn il-Kumitati biex jispjegaw u jwieġbu kif mexxew u jispjegaw il-programm tas-sena li jkun imiss. L-istess għand­hom jidhru n-nies li qegħdin imexxu dawn l-entitajiet tal-Gvern. Ma jistax ikun li min qed imexxi ikun biss kontabbli lejn il-Ministru responsabbli. Irid ikun kontabbli u trasparenti quddiem ir-rapprezentanti tat-‘taxpayers’.

L-aġenda ta’ hawn fuq la hi qasira u lanqas faċli. Iżda hemm bżonn li nibdew biex forsi xi darba naslu. Hemm bżonn l-isforz tal-istakeholders kollha. Sforz biex intejbu l-affarijiet b’mod ippjanat u sistematiku. Irridu nif­hmu li r-rwol tal-istakeholders hu wieħed kontinwu biex intejbu l-affarijiet u mhux biex jispjegaw lin-nies li d-deċizjonijiet li ttieħdu kienu tajbin.

J’Alla li minn din is-saga u froġa tal-kontijiet tad-dawl u l-ilma joħroġ xi ħaġa tal-ġid sew għall-konsumaturi ta’ dawn is-servizzi u sew għall-ażjendi u l-ħaddiema tagħhom. Biex isir dan hemm bżonn li dan ir-Regolatur jibda jmexxi u mhux jitmexxa minn ħaddieħor.

Published in l-Orizzont of the 10th March 2009

B’sens ta’ solidarjetà

Jien nemmen li l-Awtoritajiet f’pajjiżna għandhom rwol importanti. Dan għax is-sistema li tintuża fin-negozji hi s-suq. Id-Dipartiment tal-Konsumaturi hu wieħed minn dawn ir-regolaturi.

Mhux l-ewwel darba li kkritikajt dan id-dipartiment għax nemmen li jrid jieħu rwol aktar dinamiku u proattiv. Bħalma dejjem għidt, nemmen li d-difett qiegħed fit-tmexxija u mhux fil-ħaddiema.

Għalhekk, għandi rispett kbir lejn il-ħaddiema ta’ sew din l-awtorità u sew ta’ awtoritajiet oħrajn. Hu għalhekk li nixtieq nuri s-solidarjetà tiegħi ma’ dawn il-ħaddiema.

Hu għalhekk li bqajt skantat li minkejja li hemm kritika sħiħa fil-pajjiż rigward dawn l-awtoritajiet għax mhumiex jaqdu dmirhom, issa għax dawn l-uffiċjali kienu qegħdin jaqdu dmirhom sfaw attakkati. Iżda l-agħar parti hi li l-qorti minflok tat tagħlima lil min jattakka uffiċjal pubbliku waqt il-qadi ta’ dmiru, illiberatu b’kundizzjoni li ma jagħmilx reat ieħor. Il-messaġġ li ħareġ lill-pubbliku kien wieħed ċar – li dan it-tip ta’ reat ma kienx wieħed serju.

Allura kif jista’ jkun hemm ħeġġa min-naħa tal-ħaddiema biex dawn jaqdu dmirhom? Jekk il-poplu jrid jieħu ta’ kemm qed iħallas taxxi, irridu nassiguraw li dawn l-uffiċjali jagħmlu dmirhom b’mod ġust, trasparenti u kontabbli, iżda fl-istess ħin b’moħħom mistrieħ li għandhom l-appoġġ ta’ kulħadd, inklużi istituzzjonijiet bħall-Qorti.

Letter published in l-Orizzont, 24 February 2009

A tribute to my mother, Virginia – as I remember her

Few people knew her as she never fetched the spotlight. Yet even those who never spoke to her respected her. She was considered as a reserved person as she practised the principle ‘Habib kulhadd, habib hadd’. She continued to practice this principle even during the last two years when she lived in an old-people’s home. She was friendly with all, yet she was very reserved. The only long conversations she held were with her room mate, Michaelina. When she was alone, she will either say her prayers or put her glasses on and read Maltese literature, minding only her business.

When we used to visit her, she would only ask if the rest of our families were fine. Then she will just listen to our conversation, only answering when a question was directly put to her. Yet, if there was something which she felt that she needs to tell you, she will put it in simple words. She will tell you her opinion, but she never imposed on us. I believe that the following words which were written to me by Hans, Annabelle’s (my niece) husband described her:

Ghandek ommok tal-ghageb. Fehmet u ghexet xi valuri fondi u semplici tal-hajja. Mindu kont nafha, jiena ukoll stimajtha wisq.

Kellha relazzjoni pjuttost intimu mat-tfal taghha, imma halliethom helsin. Ma indahlietx hafna fil-hajja taghhom.

M'ghamlitx xejn speciali biex in-nies jiftakru minnha. Imma xorta thalli impressioni qawwija.

I left Hans’ words as they were written – a Belgian’s view. But I share his description. While we were young she was tough manager though she would try to fit our tastes in her tight schedule. One thing she wouldn’t compromise was our studies. She was tough but patient. Uncompromising but helpful.

I can say that I owe all I know to her. She always followed my studies. Even when I started my university studies, then married, she persistently asked me how I was doing in my studies. Small things that showed her support.

Yet, when we grew up, she never pestered us. We were free to determine our destiny. Guiding and supporting us yet leaving us free. This included our beliefs. She was a devout Catholic yet she never interfered in our beliefs. She would say her opinion but she left it to us to decide. When we disagreed, and I very often disagreed with her beliefs, she was sympathetic and never held it against me. Even when she was mortally ill.

When young she was energetic with a full time-table. If we learned anything from her it was time management. Even summer was a full schedule. At 08.00 we wake up and by 10.00 sharp we must be ready to go swimming. By that time she would have finished her chores including lunch. At 12 noon, we’re back home. We have lunch and then will we have two hours rest. At 17.00 sharp we proceed to St John’s Co-Cathedral where we used to say the rosary in the chapel of Our Mother of Carafa. Afterwards we proceed to the Floriana in front of the Phoenicia where we stay till 21 hours.

This was a tight schedule for her especially since we were three children practically of the same age. But she managed with a certain calmness. She was always sure of herself and determined. The fact that my sister, brother and myself are never daunted by any task is all due to her.

But there were two things that always marvelled me during her last years. The fact that when her legs started to falter and she because slowly but surely homebound, she accepted her faith and adapted to her new life. It was unfortunate that she, during that time, could not accept the wheelchair. This made her completely homebound. However, she never complained just as she never complained whenever she was hospitalized even though she could never accept either the hospital environment nor the food.

The second thing that surprised me was that finally she accepted to stay in an old-people’s home. I believe that she accepted it simply because she realised that in spite of his efforts, my father could not cope with her day to day needs.

The above are some of the memories that I will preserve as they remind me of the solid person my mother was till her death.