I refer to the news item (TMID, 17 March) on the presentation of the Gozo Channel Company’s financial results for 2005/2006.

According to your report, Investments, Industry and IT Minister Austin Gatt and Gozo Channel chairman Joseph Borg harped on the company’s main achievements for the financial year 2005/2006. These achievements were:

• Turning losses of Lm1 million in 2002 and again in 2003 into a profit;

• Substantial increases in the tickets sold and so substantial increases in the number of passengers and vehicles; and

• Gozo’s increased accessibility through an increase in the number of trips through the introduction of a mid-season timetable.

The above achievements are just figments of the imagination of Minister Gatt and Mr Borg.

The abracadabra for turning the Gozo Channel’s losses into profits was the public service contract for a subsidy of Lm1.6 million yearly signed by the government with the company in April 2004, just before Malta’s accession to the European Union. Without this subsidy, the company would still be making substantial losses today in spite of the hefty increases in fares introduced in 2004.

Indeed the only difference in the presentation of the company’s accounts in this respect was the conversion of the informal arrangement previously adopted for the absorption of losses by the government into a contractual arrangement that elicited the condemnation of the European Commission.

Indeed, it was only last December that the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Maltese government for failure to comply with Community rules on maritime cabotage. The reasoned opinion is the last stage before the Commission possibly takes Malta to the Court of Justice.

The Commission found that Malta had not justified the need to conclude in April 2004 an exclusive public service contract with the Gozo Channel Company to provide sea transport services between Malta and Gozo. Moreover, the Commission said that the contract was signed without a prior tender procedure offering all interested operators equal access to the market.

As regards the second proclaimed achievement, it is absolutely not true that there were any increases in the number of Maltese and foreigners coming to Gozo. Indeed whereas in 2003/2004, prior to the increase in fares, the number of Maltese and foreign passengers who came to Gozo was 1,085,416, their number went down to 1,058,064 in 2004/2005, a loss of 27,352 visitors, and to 1,058,625 in 2005/2006, a loss of 26,791 visitors, a total loss of 54,143 for the last two years. This is obviously a far cry from what was misleadingly said in the official presentation as quoted in your report that “3,554,714 passengers crossed over between the two islands in 2006”.

Let me now turn to the third proclaimed achievement of better accessibility. According to what was carried in your report, the introduction of “the mid-season timetable in June and October 2006 made Gozo more accessible.” It is true that whereas in 2005 the company performed 18,789 trips, in 2006 it performed 19,209, an increase of 420 trips. However, both Minister Gatt and Mr Borg failed to say that in the year 2000, Gozo Channel had performed 21,756 trips, that is 2,547 trips more than it performed in 2006. Both of them also failed to say that last year, the company reduced its number of trips on the Sa Maison route from over 500 five years ago to less than 300 in 2006.

Both Minister Gatt and Mr Borg should know that “a valid social and economic contribution to the island” is not brought about by lip service trying to fool the people through political spin.

Anton Refalo MP, LLD

Victoria