Referring to an article by Noel Grima carried in yesterday’s The Malta Independent regarding energy benefit vouchers, the Social Security Division said the process of issuing energy benefit vouchers is normally carried out on a weekly basis and the vouchers are posted to the beneficiaries the week following the issue of the water and electricity bills.

The vouchers have a validity period of six-months and are expected to be presented with the settlement of the water and electricity bills. If an energy benefit voucher is not redeemed within the six-month period, it is possible for the beneficiary to have the voucher re-dated for another six-month period. “This process of re-dating can only be carried out once after which entitlement to the voucher is lost if it is not redeemed by the beneficiary before the expiration of 12 months after its original issue date,” the division said.

The division said it is true that during the period of the changeover from the previous billing system to the new system there was a period of approximately six weeks in which the vouchers could not be issued, “however it is to be made clear that during the past weeks, all pending vouchers have been sent to eligible beneficiaries”.

It added that “contrary to the impression that was conveyed in the article in question, the division would like to clarify that the energy benefit system is to be retained. Furthermore, weekly processes are being carried out by the division to ensure the continued timely issue of such vouchers, including those where a re-dating has been requested.”

The Division stressed it is important that vouchers which beneficiaries receive are redeemed immediately with the water and electricity bills, in order to avoid having such vouchers expiring.

Noel Grima replies:

One notes at the outset that this reply is from one of the two sides involved in the issue – the Social Security Division, but not from Enemalta, WSC or ARMS.

If, as the statement says, the energy vouchers continued to be issued, and if no bills were being issued over the same time, what could the vouchers be used for?

Did anyone advise the people receiving the vouchers to go and have the vouchers re-dated?

The division could also find out on its own that the vouchers were not being exchanged, for the absence of bills must have meant people were not using the vouchers. That should have triggered a pre-emptive reaction, rather than a belated reply to a news item.

And had there been more close coordination with WSC, the amount of complaints registered should have been reflected at the higher levels. As also should the complaints received by the offices of the Social Services Division.