Merry Christmas!

 

Il-Perit Charles Buhagiar twieled fl-14 ta' Lulju 1955. Hu studja fl-Universita ta' Malta minn fejn iggradwa bhala perit fl-1979. Ikkontesta l-elezzjoni fi hdan il-Partit Laburista l-ewwel darba fl-1987 fejn gie elett u baqa' jigi elett fl-elezzjonijiet li saru wara fl-1992, 1996, 1998. Fl-amministrazzjoni Laburista ta' bejn 1996-1998 u 2003, serva bhala Ministru ghax-Xoghlijiet Pubblici u Kostruzzjoni. Il-Perit Buhagiar kien il-perit inkarigat mid-disinn u l-bini tac-Centru Nazzjonali Laburista fil-Hamrun.  Illum hu l- kelliemi ewlieni parlamentari fuq zvilupp Infrastrutturali u Progetti Kapitali. Hu mizzewweg lil Simone u ghandu tifla, Estelle.

GASCO

Recently a motion was moved by government for EneMalta to transfer to a company called GASCO Energy Ltd (a joint venture between Multigas and an Italian company) a large plot of land at Benghajsa measuring in total 77,376 square meters for the specific purpose of erecting a new gas storage and bottling plant.  This land was transferred by means of a 33 year lease for the sum of € 57,234 (LM 24,955) each year.   This works out at € 0.74 per square meters (LM 0.317/sq mt). 

Another two contracts were included with this motion which creates a servitude to enable the passage of fuel pipes from the berth of the ship in the Freeport over Freeport property and over a stretch of land which is public property.  For the creation of these servitudes the contracts specified a one time payment of € 950 to EneMalta for the servitude over public land (which had already been transferred to EneMalta) and €20,000 to be paid by EneMalta to the Freeport for the creation of the servitude over Freeport property.   

The relocation of the EneMalta’s gas facility to Benghajsa goes back many years.  Indeed during Labour’s administration (1996-1998) MEPA was requested to locate the most suitable site for such a facility.  Such a site requires to be located in close proximity to a port.  The only possible site identified by MEPA was that at Benghajsa but at the time MEPA had some reservations since it was located in the flight path of aeroplanes landing at the international airport.  For this reason it was argued that this site posed a great risk in case of a forced landing of a plane.

In spite of this the site at Benghajsa was transferred to EneMalta for the specific relocation of the gas plant from Qajjenza on the 23^rd April, 2004.  For the acquisition of the land by EneMalta from the Lands Department on a 65 year lease the value of the lease payable to the Lands Department is exactly the same as that being paid by Gasco to EneMalta.  However thee is one important difference between the two contracts.  For its lease EneMalta was also askedto pay a one time lamp sum of nearly LM 11,000,000 (€ 25,600,000).  No such payment was requested from Gasco by EneMalta.  The Malta Labour Party fully supported this move.  If anything we feel this move is taking much too long to finally happen.

Fort St. Elmo Cultural Village - The Times (12/11/08)

 In his article regarding Fort St. Elmo Dr. Ray Bondin made the argument for promoting Fort St. Elmo as a cultural centre.  I fully support the idea that one of the most suitable uses for Fort St. Elmo is that for cultural purposes.  It is definitley not enough to sporadically clean up the Fort and even muve the squatters out because unless the Fort is put to good use it would continue to deteriorate.

 As also mentioned by D. Bondin during the Labour administration 1996 – 1998 a development brief was proposed for Fort St. Elmo.  In this brief it is stated that Fort St. Elmo comprises approximately 20 % of the total land mass of the Valletta peninsula.  It is thus a great shame that no particular use has been found for this fort and that it had been left to deteriorate over the years with squatters moving into it and using it for their own (sometimes unlawful) purposes.

 The rehabilitation of Fort St. Elmo is important because the regeneration of Valletta cannot be allowed to take place solely in the upper part of the city but has to spread across the entire length and breadth of the Valletta peninsula. Indeed in Labour’s plan for the regeneration of the Grand Harbour it is proposed that a special axis is created joining Fort St. Elmo to City gate.  This axis can be in the form of upgraded pedestrian walkways joining the two sides.

 With regards to the Fort St. Elmo area this also includes the property known as Evans Building.  This property occupies a prime location overlooking the entrance to the Grand Harbour and in my opinion the potential of this site is not being fully utlised with its present use.  My suggestion would be that since Evans Building adjoins the Mediterranean Conference Centre than a more suitable use would be an up-market hotel which would cater for tourists who visit Malta either for business or cultural reasons.

 Fort St. Elmo can be converted into a cultural village providing space for all types of cultural activities.  The war museum can remain in its present location as well as those who use parts of the Fort to construct carnival floats.  Indeed we consider carnival as also being part of our culture and so if these carnival enthusiasts are organized well and keep the place tidy then they can also be considered an attraction to tourists.

 In my opinion there should also be some sort of military presence in the Fort to retain its original use.  This would be of importance in the eventuality that the police move out

WATER  

Government has just announced the new tariffs for water and electricity which have been substantially increased due to the rising cost of fuel

However the effect of this cost is very different in the pricing of water and electricity since whilst it is true that the price of electricity depends directly on the cost of fuel, on the other hand the cost of fuel has a much lower impact on the production cost of water.  Indeed from the annual report of the Water Services Corporation one may note that for the period October 2006 – September 2007, the production cost of water amounted to € 18,440,000 whilst the electricity charges amounted to € 5,490,000 or 33.6%.  From the same estimates distribution costs amounted to € 10,795,000 whilst electricity charges or same amounted to € 1,176,000 or 9.2 %.

If one were to factor in the administration cost of € 10,300,000 (the electricity cost for this is negligible) and the finance cost of € 2,547,000 then the total cost for water would amount to € 42,082,000 which includes electricity consumption of € 6,666,000.  Thus the cost of electricity in the total cost of water amounts to less than 16 %.

In my opinion it is thus not justified to increase in the same manner the tariffs for water and electricity when the impact of the cost of fuel is much less in the case of water

One must also bear in mind the way the invoice for water consumption is structured.  This invoice is based on the actual cost of water but then what is considered as normal consumption is subsidised.  Thus in each invoice one finds a subsidy which is deducted from the total bill.  This subsidy varies depending on the number of persons in each household.

Such a system is considered fair by everyone since water is an essential resource which one cannot do without. If one consumes water in moderation then one expects a reasonable bill.  If one uses water abundantly or wastes water then one pays for the water at the full price.

This system encourages the careful use of water and serves as an incentive for the introduction of water saving systems including the use of wells.

 In my opinion this system of billing for water consumption should be retained for domestic consumers with the only difference being the charge in the rate of water to reflect its actual cost. 

Maybe the time has also arrived to issue separate bills for water and electricity.  WSC would invoice for the water and EneMalta for the electricity.  In this way one would use different pricing mechanism for the utilities.

Government has also stated that an increase in the cost of water could lead to further exploitation of the acquifer by means of boreholes by the heavy users.  To try to control this water extraction, Ministser George Pullicino has issued  a call for borehole registration and has also stated that the water extracted from each borehole is to be metered.  Minister Gatt went one better and stated that borehole water should be charged.

 Most boreholes are used by farmers for the irrigation of their crops.  If a price is imposed on water extracted from boreholes then the cost of agricultural production would become prohibitive.  Hence if government in serious in its resolve to limit the extraction of water from boreholes then one needs to provide farmers with an alternative source of relatively cheap water.

 This can be done both by the collection, storage and reuse of rain water as well as by the use of treated effluent.

 Government should invest in alternative sources of water by building the necessary infrastructure to manage the storm water.  As used to happen in past years government should also give financial support to farmers for the construction of reservoirs.

 In the case of the reuse of treated effluent minister Gatt states that it is not possible to use this water for irrigation purpose since it would need further treatment.  This argument is wrong.  Indeed since its inauguration more than 20 years ago the water produced by the Sant Antnin sewage treatment plant has always been used by the farmers of that area for irrigation purposes.  Likewise the second class water produced by the new sewage treatment plant in Gozo is also being used by farmers.

 But even if one assumes that to use the second class water one needs to treat it to a further stage then such a process would still be economically viable.  This is because a percentage of the water used for irrigation purposes actually filters down to recharge the acquifer.  One must also remember that unless farmers work their fields, these fields become derelict thus having a very serious negative impact on the rural environment.   Thus one can argue that the provision of water to farmers helps in the upkeep of the rural environment.

 The problem of the distribution of second class water to farmers lies in the location of the sewage treatment plant in particular with the location of the largest plant in Kalkara - an area whose farmers are already served with water produced from the Sant Antnin Sewage Treatment Plant

 The 1996 - 1998 Labour administration was considering building two smaller plants – one in Maghtab and one in the Qormi/Marsa area.  The plant at Maghtab would have provided water for the irrigation of the golf course and family park planned instead of the Maghtab landfill whilst the one at Marsa/Qormi could have been used by industry as well as the farmers of the area.

 Now that our largest treatment plant is to be built at Kalkara it is extremely expensive to distribute the water produced from this plant to other areas since it would require a new distribution network.  In my opinion the choice of locations for the sewage treated plants was wrong since the use of the second class water was not factored in, in the choice of location.

 Thus in my opinion it is incorrect to base the pricing of water and electricity on the same parameters.  I strongly recommend government to retain the present format of water billing for domestic users and to invest heavily and provide financial aid to those who would like to exploit alternative sources of water.

Charles Buhagiar A&CE, MP.

Main Spokesperson – Infrastructure and Capital Projects.