Category: Archive – 2013

GRTU has this week welcomed high
officials promoting investment in the agriculture sector and the Ambassador of
Tunisia to Malta Souad Gueblaoui. Agriculture is one of the main industries in
Tunisia, providing an important contribution to labour occupancy and GDP and is
one of Tunisia's main export sectors.

Tunisia not only has
immense land resources with 5 million hectares of agricultural land and 450
thousand hectares of irrigated land but they also encourage agriculture and
Government helps farmers and provides incentives directly. They impose no taxes on the
agricultural sector, including the purchasing of machinery. Annually they
realize 6 thousand agricultural projects valued at €270M a year. They also
offer investors the opportunity to invest in agriculture in partnership with a
Tunisian partner. Foreign partners are encouraged because they can hold 66% of
shares.

Their main partners are EU
countries, mainly Italian, French, Spanish and Dutch. Tunisian products are
sold all over Europe as European products but they are actually made from
Tunisian produce. Tunisian products are very good quality and due to their
climate they are ready for harvest earlier than EU products. They are also very
cheap because an agriculture worker is paid €12 for a days work. The products
are therefore very competitive even with logistics.

Many Tunisian products imported
from other EU countries if imported directly from Tunisia would cost much less.
Tunisia also has a trade agreement with the EU for exports.

Investment in agriculture and
pasta is being highly encouraged and Malta should become Tunisia's stepping
stone for Tunisian exports into Europe. At the end of June an agriculture fair
will be organized in Marsascala where Tunisian products will be available.

Council loses
3rd appeal at public contracts review board – Valletta Local Council has lost another appeal in front
of the Public Contracts Review Board in respect to ‘Collection of Mixed
Household Waste in Valletta'. It is the third waste mangement tender that has
come in front of this Board and the Board has taken the same decision in
relation to the same Local Council.

All Waste Management tenders issued by Valletta
Local Council in October 2012 have to be reissued. All aggrieved bidders were
refunded their deposits.

Even though these decisions were taken by the
Board, the Council continues to use its first recomended bidder, Waste
Collection Limited for all three services within Valletta in outright  breach of Public Procurement
Regulations. 

Waste Collection Limited has filed three appeals at the
Law Courts in respect to these three decisions. Our first question is whether
Waste Collection Limited has a right to appeal? The Valletta Local Council was
party to the first appeal at the Public Contracts Review Board and not Waste
Collection Limited.

And just because Waste Collection Limited filed an appeal
at the Law Courts, does this in itself give them the right to continue to operate
the three services? And where is this right derived from? How is this service
provider being paid if there is no letter of acceptance in place? Is there any
reason why a quotation for these services was not issued in line with Public
Procurement Regulations when the Council was adviced to do so by the Department
for Local Government.

GRTU Malta Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprises,
continues to harp on this matter because we are here to safeguard a fair and
level playing field for all our members. We cannot allow Local Councils to
treat our members in a different way because they see members with a different
perspective.

We cannot reach a point where the autonomy of the Local
Council means that a Local Council can do whatever it feels like doing with public
funds. Public funds are public funds and their scrutiny is very important.

We are not against Local Councils who want a better
service in a Locality in whatever service, however the tender document issued
has to be followed and adhered to anddecisions of the Local Council have to be
taken in line with the tender document.

We surely feel that it is the ripe time that the
Government should set up Adjudication Board/s in a number of different sectors
related to the day to day running of Local Councils. Tenders relating to Waste
Managment amongst others should be adjudicated by competent persons appionted
by Government through its different Ministries or stakeholders, this both to
protect public funds and also to provide a transparent and level playing field.
The Board would then adjudicate all Waste Managment tenders issued by all Local
Councils.

Over and over again, GRTU has been inundated with
allegations by contractors who operate in the waste managment sector that Local
Councils award the tenders to whoever they want. Whilst this cannot be accepted
as a blanket statement, we are sure somewhere something is wrong. And whatever
is wrong needs to be addressed and solutions found.

Valletta Local Council has clearly shown that it does not
respect either Public Procurement regulations, neither the instructions given
to it by the Public Contracts Review Board, and neither to instructions
forwarded by the Department of Local Government. Can all these Authorities be
in the wrong and Valletta Local Council be in the right?

We are of the opinion that there is more to these three
tenders than what one sees at face value today. Going through the saga from
early 2012 to date shows one trail, a trail of arrogance and half truths which
can never be accepted by the business community in this sector. This sector has
had enough and all it needs is the continued arrogance of a Local Council like
Valletta. If Valletta Local Council have got away with all this, why wouldnt
any other Local Council follow suit? Is this the way forward?

Article written by Joe Attard, GRTU Official responsible
for Waste, Energy , Transport and Environment.  

In
his intervention at the European Economic and Social Committee's 490^th Plenary session
GRTU's Director General and EESC Employers representative Vincent Farrugia
addressed the Plenary on two very important topics at the moment; The Financial
Transaction Tax (FTT) and Youth unemployment.

On
the FTT Mr Farrugia argued that when the European Commission first introduced
the FTT in 2011 it appeared as a proposal of little concern however important
developments took place and now it is worrying even its supporters. This
especially since last February the Commission published a proposal that would
allow 11 countries to go ahead with the FTT and possibly in 2014 start charging
levies of 0.1% on equity and debt transactions and 0.01% on derivatives. The
proposed rules are designed to discourage firms from avoiding the tax by
shifting trading abroad. The FTT will be charged not just on transactions that
take place within the 11 countries, but on any transactions that involve shares
or bonds issued by them. This is indeed very worrying and a new strong wave of
lobbying has started against the FTT.

On
youth unemployment official ILO figures say that 75m young people are
unemployed, or 6% of all 15- to 24-year-olds. The OECD counts 26m young people
in the rich world as not in employment, education or training. A World Bank
database compiled from households shows more than 260m young people in
developing economies are similarly "inactive". These total to almost 290m that are neither working nor
studying: almost a quarter of the planet's youth.

Young
people have long had a raw deal in the labour market. Two things make the
problem more pressing now. The financial crisis and its aftermath had an
unusually big effect on them. In Greece and Spain over a sixth of the young
population are without a job. Second, the emerging economies that have the
largest and fastest-growing populations of young people also have the worst-run
labour markets. They also have the highest share of young people out of work or
in the informal sector. Though they are at different stages of development, the
countries all suffer disproportionately from employment's main curses: low
growth, clogged labour markets and a mismatch between education and work.

In
rich countries with generous welfare states this imposes a heavy burden on
taxpayers. One estimate suggests that, in 2011, the economic loss from
disengaged young people in Europe amounted to more than 1% of GDP. And failure
to employ the young not only lowers growth today. It also threatens it
tomorrow.

A
third problem is the mismatch between the skills that young people offer and
the ones that employees need. Employers are awash with applications-but
complain that they cannot find candidates with the right abilities. The most
obvious reason for the mismatch is poor basic education. Countries with the lowest
youth jobless rates have a close relationship between education and work while
countries with high youth unemployment are short of such links.

Some
policymakers want to transform unemployment systems from safety nets into
spring boards, providing retraining and job placement and the state paying a
big chunk of their wage. Practicality however constrains certain countries'
ability to implement such active labour-market policies. Countries like Spain
and Italy, with millions of unemployed people, could not hope to follow suit in
a time of boom let alone one of austerity.

It
is hard to be optimistic about a problem that is blighting the lives of so many
people. But it is perhaps time to be a bit less pessimistic. Policymakers know
what to do to diminish the problem-ignite growth, break down cartels and build
bridges between education and work. New technology gives them powerful tools
too. Countries that make the investments and choices needed to grapple with
their unemployed youth could see some dramatic improvement ahead.

The Malta-EU Steering and Action
Committee (MEUSAC) together with the Malta competition & Consumer Affairs
Authority will be organising a consultation session on two Proposals for a
Council Regulation namely:

Consumer product safety and Market
surveillance of products

The impact of these two
Proposals will have positive outcomes on consumers, economic operators and
authorities.

The consultation session which
will proceed in Maltese will be held on:

Wednesday, May
29, 2013 at 2 p.m.

at Europe House, 254, St.Paul's Street, Valletta.

This
consultation session shall be open to the general public

The single market – The
single market also called the internal market is one of the EU's greatest
achievements. Restrictions on trade and free competition between member
countries have gradually been eliminated but the single market has not yet
become a single economy. Some sectors (in particular services of general
interest: electricity, water, fuel…) are still subject to national laws.

The
European Economic Community (EEC) abolished customs barriers between member
states to apply a common customs tariff to goods from non-EEC countries.

The
single market benefits all consumers, for example the opening up of national
markets for services has brought down the price of national telephony calls to
a fraction of what they were 10 years ago. EU airlines may now operate air
services on any route within the EU and set fares at any level they choose.
Consequently any routes have opened up and prices have fallen dramatically.

Physical barriers

All
border controls within the EU on goods have been abolished, together with
customs controls on people, but the police still carry out random spot checks
as part of the fight against crime and drugs. Following the introduction of the
Schengen Agreement further improvements in this regards were made. Schengen
will be explained further in another lesson.

Technical barriers

Since
1979 any product legally manufactured and sold in one member state must be
allowed to be placed on the market in all others. Where services are concerned,
EU countries mutually recognise or coordinate their national rules allowing
people to practice professions such as law, medicine, tourism, banking or
insurance. Freedom of people and practicing professions however still requires
further work.

Tax barriers

These
have been reduced by partially aligning national VAT rates.

Public contracts

Public
contracts in any EU country are now open to bidders from anywhere in the EU.

Competition

The
EU's competition policy is essential for ensuring that, within the European
single market, competition is not only free but also fair. The purpose of this
policy is to prevent any business cartel, any aid from public authorities or
any unfair monopoly from distorting free competition within the single market.

Protecting citizens

EU
legislation aims to give al consumers the same degree of financial and health
protection, regardless of where in the EU they live, travel or do shopping.
Europe-wide consumer protection is needed in many other fields too, which is
why there are numerous EU directives on the safety of cosmetics, toys, fireworks,
etc… The EU also takes action to protect consumers from false and misleading
advertising, defective products and abuses in areas such as consumer credit and
mail-order or internet selling.

The commerce sector welcomes the
commitments offered by Visa Europe on its interchange fees and associated
rules. The card scheme has offered to cut its interchange fees on credit cards
to 0.3%. It will also remove restrictions on cross-border acquiring.

"We welcome this news as
a further step in the right direction: it shows that the wind is finally
changing on interchange fees. But, we need even stronger measures in the
upcoming regulation," said Christian Verschueren, Director-General of
EuroCommerce. "More remains to be done: we need the Commission to go further
and to tackle all excessive fees on national payment card transactions."

If these commitments are
accepted, both Visa and MasterCard's cross-border interchange fees will stand
at 0.2% for debit and 0.3% for credit. The Visa commitments would also apply to
domestic fees in 10 Member States. This is an improvement, but it is only a
start. Interchange fee rates, in general, remain disproportionately high in
many Member States and this is where the real economic damage is being done. A
similar case is on-going in France with preliminary commitments from both Visa
and MasterCard to reduce their fees. However, these proposals do not go far
enough. The commerce sector looks to the Commission's forthcoming regulation on
interchange fees to take an even stronger line to fully resolve the issues at
domestic level in all Member States.

On cross-border
acquiring, Mr Verschueren commented, "We very much welcome this long-awaited
reform. We have long argued that the card schemes' rules on cross-border
acquiring were wholly contrary to single market principles. Merchants should be
able to fully benefit from centralising their acquiring in one place, which
will bring economies of scale to the European economy as a whole. We look
forward to similar rule changes from MasterCard."

The commerce sector calls
on the Commission to come up with even more robust rules in the payments
legislation expected before the summer. EuroCommerce will continue to campaign
for a regulation which removes excessive interchange fees, not only
cross-border but also on all domestic markets. It is also crucial that the
revision of the Payment Service Directive is robust in allowing new payment
providers and innovative business models to enter the market.

Anti-Dumping duties on enforced permanently – As importers certainly recall GRTU
had warned of such a possibility and held consultation meetings in this regard.
GRTU has this week received information that the duties have now indeed been
confirmed for 5 years, starting 16^th May 2013.

The products concerned excluding
ceramic knives, ceramic condiment or spice mills and their ceramic grinding
parts, ceramic peelers, ceramic knife sharpeners and cordierite ceramic
pizza-stones of a kind used for baking pizza or bread, currently falling within
CN codes ex 6911 10 00, ex 6912 00 10, ex 6912 00 30, ex 6912 00 50 and ex 6912
00 90 (TARIC codes 6911 10 00 90, 6912 00 10 11, 6912 00 10 91, 6912 00 30 10,
6912 00 50 10 and 6912 00 90 10) and originating in the PRC.

The
rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net,
free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described above and
produced by the companies listed below, shall be as per this table:

The
full details and more importantly Annex A (with the list of companies on page
28) can be found on:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:131:0001:0045:EN:PDF

Changes in Taxation of Farmers

GRTU has written to Mr Roderick Galdes, Parliamentary Secretary  for Agriculture, Fisheries and Animal Rights:

Unfair loss of
revenue, related to taxation due from individuals who are full time farmers but
also support their earnings through other economic activities.

Pitkalija
reform: Unfortunately the previous Special Committee on the Reform of the
Pitkalija has been left in abeyance. The whole reform has remained a mystery to
buyers and no forums exist for us to present recommendations for reform.

Recommendations
for the reform and re-foundation on an new commercial structure of the area in
Ta' Qali in use by buyers from the Ta' Qali Pitkalija.

Enforcement
of Illicit Trading

GRTU has expressed its concern
to Prof. Edward Scicluna, Minister of Finance, arguing that the loss of trade
and negative impact on private trading profits of legitimate traders as well as
the effective drain of public revenue from customs tariffs, VAT, ECO Tax and
Income Tax necessitates strong effective action.

GRTU recommended the
immediate establishment of an ad-hoc Commission with the participation of all
stake-holders including GRTU to investigate, assess data and make
recommendations for action without further delay.

ECO
Contribution

Writing
to Permanent Secretary Alfred Camilleri calling an urgent meeting to come
forward with a plan of action to resolve matters on Eco Contribution.

The
situation as it is now is no longer tenable and definitely not acceptable to
GRTU. Too many products that end up on the waste stream continue to remain Eco
Tax free while many polluters remain outside the legal registration regime. The
whole Eco Tax structures was established with little experience and with very
narrow aims and, in spite of the change brought forward through consultations,
the whole Eco Tax regime remains deficient. The end result is that too few
entrepreneurs are carrying the major burden. Government had become resistant to
change while the national targets remain unfulfilled. We now feel the time is
ripe for a thorough change.

Reduction
of Port dues

GRTU has written to Hon Dr Chris
Cardona on the excessive port charges imposed by the Terminal Operators and by
Malta Transport.

In spite of the previous
planned action to resolve this matter nothing effective was materialized. The
privatization of both the Valletta and the Marsaxlokk harbours brought
additional costs rather than the reductions that were promised. Furthermore
compared to other harbours, charges are simply not competitive.

GRTU has expressed the
importance to establish a new participative stake-holders' commission to
address this issue to investigate, assess and recommend is more logical
solution to bring in affective reforms.

Crafts
Village Ta` Qali

GRTU
has written to CEO Sue Vella saying that our impression is that this issue has
gone on the back burner.  The last stage
as approved by Malta Enterprise Board was the signing of the Memorandum of
Understanding on 6th of June 2012 that should have led the way for the fulfillment
of the agreed Plan of Action.

GRTU
requested an update of the state of play as GRTU is eager for a solution. GRTU
will continue to strive for a definite conclusion that satisfies the majority
of operators and leads the way for new craft ventures.

GRTU
requested for our specific committee to be briefed, updated and kept in
consultation. GRTU is looking forward to an early meeting in this regard.

Reduction
in Payment Card costs

GRTU has
written to Hon Christopher Cardona, Minister for Economy, Investment an Small
Business on the whole argument GRTU has concerning the Multilateral Interchange
fees (MIFs). These are charged at the banking level and passed on to merchants
and consumers, but it is invisible to consumers, who cannot avoid it. Banks argue
that in return they offer several benefits, many of which are not requested by
card holders, but are accepted because they are considered ‘free' – even if
many of them are rarely used.

This is
particularly bad for SMEs, which have no negotiating muscle, although many such
small businesses must now accept cards to retain their customers. The net
result is that every consumer pays, even those who pay by cash because this
‘transaction tax' ends up as part of the final price.

Following
complaints made the unfair situation created was recognised by European Courts
and important changes had to be made by both Master Card and Visa.

Across
European countries, the level of interchange fees varies significantly.
Competition authorities, central banks and other authorities around the world
have been investigating and expressing concerns about the operation of card
payment systems for many years. Reform has taken place in a number of
jurisdictions. In many countries, interchange fees have been decreasing over
time.

GRTU
emphasised that in Malta the issue needs to be taken seriously as it was taken
in many other Member States. Government should ensure that local banks are
implementing the decisions of the European Courts in a timely manner and where
discrepancies are found push for adherence. The office of Competition should
also legally investigate the anti-transparency and anti-competitive behaviour
of banks by imposing hidden and artificially high prices. MIFs should be
brought down the real cost of the service utilized.

Fees
for credit applications should be cost-based, unbundled from all other services
(e.g. interest free period and rewards) and paid for by the beneficiary of the
service. Any reintroduction of such fees by any other mechanism should be
banned.

The fee
that meets the test is set at such a level that the merchant would be at least
indifferent as to whether his customer pays by card or in cash.

GRTU's
impression is that the Public regulators in Malta have not given this matter
the due consideration in spite of the highly negative impact MIF charges have.
The GRTU requested determining action and a clear public position by Public
Regulators.

Rent
Conditions on Gov Owned Shop Premises in Valletta

GRTU wrote to Dr Michael
Farrugia, Parliamentary Secretary for Planning and Simplification of
Administrative Processes. Following a worrying statement made in Parliament by
Dr Farrugia GRTU felt the need to highlight that the current rent policy as
obtained after years of negotiations with Government on behalf of retailers in
government owned premises is very important for many of our members, as indeed
is the whole reformed Rent Laws for which GRTU has strong and published
reservations.

Rent conditions are
important and the liabilities resulting from the incorporated conditions have
great impact on the viability of all enterprises. An enterprise does not merely
impact economically on its owner but also on other dependents of the enterprise
including employees and their families, creditors, etc. The survival of an
enterprise is a main issue for GRTU and that is an important reason why we
strive for security of tenure on rent matters and why we object to rent clauses
that jeopardize the long term survival of the enterprise if subjected to
generic renting conditions.

GRTU requested to be
consulted prior to any changes on the matter.

Burdnara
issues

Writing to Mr James Piscopo,
Chairman at Transport Malta, GRTU expressed that because of our members it is
extremely important for GRTU that a constant fruitful relationship and a
structured consultation process is maintained.

GRTU mentioned that
currently, Burdnara (Licensed Customs Clearance Agents and Cargo Haulers) have
unresolved issues related to operations at Valletta Gate Terminal, Laboratory
Wharf, Freeport, Hal Far Groupage Depot and Airport.

GRTU asked for an
opportunity to brief the Chairman on pending issues.

Authorised Waste Packaging Compliance Scheme Green MT meets its 2012
targets – Green MT, the National Waste Packaging
Compliance Scheme, has been provided with a permit to continue operations for
2013 and 2014. In the year 2012, the Scheme producer members placed 19,331 tons
of packaging waste on the market, and recovered a total of 12,942 tons in the
same calendar year.

– Self Compliant' Producers evade costs or payment of €1.5M in 2010 alone

– MEPA enforcement in the sector inexistent

– An unfair level playing field for schemes

– Approving Body (Eco Contribution) not as yet appointed

Green MT caters for 6 Local Councils in the Southern
Harbour Area, 8 in the Northern Harbour Area, 2 in the South Eastern Area, 5 in
the Western Area, 6 in the Northern Area and 10 in Gozo.

Recoveries from Local councils amounted to 7230 tons
mainly from Grey Bag and also Bring in Sites. This results into approximately
31.70 kg per capita across the board. The Scheme's market placement (Packaging
Waste placed on the market) for 2012 was generated as follows:

12951
tons from Scheme members who have Eco Contribution exemption 

6380
tons resulting from other members

Thus our total recoveries had to reach a recovery of
12894tons .  

The fugures are proof that our legal obligations for
Compliance for both Eco Exempt members and Non Exempt Members were reached.

‘Self Compliant'
Producers evade costs or payment of €1.5M in 2010 alone

We once again point out that within this market
sector, the operation of Authorised Packaging Waste Compliance Schemes is not
transparent and a fair playing field does not exist. It is a pity that a number
of questions remain unanswered both by the Malta Environment and Planning
Authority (MEPA), the regulator of LN 277 of 2006 and also by others in the
sector who should know better.

In 2010 alone over 766 producers declared themselves
self compliant. Together they placed over 15,733 tons of packaging waste in the
market and recovered only 566 tons from a legal obligation of 8810 tons. So
over 8244 tons of packaging waste was never recovered by these producers. They
did not do anything to effect self compliance, just filled in an application
and paid Euro 35 to MEPA.  So whilst Green MT and Green pak members paid
their respective Scheme hundreds and thousands of Euros, others paid nothing at
all.

MEPA were duty bound to issue penalties to each
producer who did not comply and further request those who did not comply to
join Schemes. They did neither!

To add insult to injury, Green MT and Green Pak
collect consumer packaging of these so declared self compliant and free riders
for free. This is not only not acceptable but utterly disgusting. Schemes are
forking out hundreds and thousands of Euros to recover the grey and green bag,
empty and maintain and upkeep bring in sites within Local Councils. Why should
we do this any longer? The past administration did not hear our voice for one
reason…they were not paying for such services. We now urge this
administration to hear our voice, cause if it does not, it will be shortly
taking on an expense of at least €6M to cover these services.

An unfair
level playing field for schemes

Schemes are not operating on a fair and level playing
field. Green MT in 2010 and 2011 used Wasteserv services only. Green pak used
five different waste managment facilities in 2011 and nine different facilities in
2012. Certificates issued by some of these facilities leave much to be desired.
They carry no audit trail at all, or if they do the audit trail is a false one
completely. It is easy for an individual to copy a few numbers of authorised
waste carriers found in the MEPA website and outline that they delivered
material to the facility whilst the material in different volumes would have
come from unauthorised vehicles, vans, trucks, etc, whose only interest is to
take plastic and carton from anywhere, mostly from free riders to the facility
and receive a payment. Our competing Scheme then bought the volume from these
waste management facilities.  Some of these waste management facilities
did not even have a weighing facility. How were receipts issued and on what
basis?

So we have free riders going to facilities in
unauthorised vehicles and getting paid some funds for doing so, and eventually
the facility sells the volume for certification and also exports the material
abroad against payment. We have a ripe black market economy, which the previous
administration was aware about but did not tackle in the last two years,
because they thought they would loose votes. The environment is neither blue,
red or black. It is green and I do honestly hope we keep it that way.

Government
needs to act now

Amendments to the current waste packaging regulations
were drafted late last year so that any company who placed consumer packaging
on the market would be obliged to be part of an existing authorised Scheme.
These amendments are still there, despite their urgent need to have them issued
as legal notice. These changes would help Schemes a bit further to meet their
financial expectations.

GRTU Malta Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprises way
back in 2006 set on path to make sure that the business community committed
itself to complying to environmental legislation. This in itself wasn't easy.
Now over 3000 producers are registered with MEPA, and out of these 2500 are
members of Schemes.

A lot of good work has been done to make sure that
many producers come on board but without continued support from MEPA's
Enforcement Directorate, this will surely fail as it has done to date. It has
failed both in 2011 and in 2012.

GRTU and Green MT will support any initiative by the
present administration to make sure that producers are all on a fair and level
playing field. We consider ourselves as leaders in this sector. We have
presented a Dossier to Minister Brincat on the problems currently in place
together with solutions. We have a lot of faith in Minister Brincat.

At present the
Approving Body (Eco Contribution) has not yet been appointed.

We cannot wait any longer. It is time for action. It
is time to decide and get things done. No more studies. The past administration
was so fond of studies that so many were left on the shelf and never came to
good use, after so many thousands of Euros were paid to so many consultants. We
are not in favour of more studies. We are in favour of decisions and actions.
Government needs to get its road map going in this sector, today before
tomorrow.  We are sure that together we can reach our goals, both locally
and on a European Level. We need to take strong decisions, we need to take decisions
that bite. But this we must do in the name of a better environment. Government
has our full support to reach its goals in this waste management sector.