|
Kurt Sansone
The surcharge on water and electricity bills has the vestiges of a temporary measure, but an analysis of the figures presented by the Prime Minister in Parliament during his budget closing down speech shows that it will be almost impossible for the surcharge to be removed altogether.
The 17 per cent tax will only disappear if Enemalta’s projected annual fuel costs reach Lm31.6 million (baseline cost), which is just above the amount paid by the Corporation for its fuel requirements in 2000.
Even with fuel oil costing less in 2004 than it did in 2003, the total amount paid by Enemalta was still around Lm40m. According to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report Enemalta is projecting a total fuel cost to the tune of Lm47.8m in 2005.
Customers bills may eventually be lower if the dollar continues to weaken against the Maltese Lira and fuel oil maintains the relatively stable price it had in 2004 but there is little to no possibility that Enemalta’s bill will ever reach the baseline cost of four years ago.
The very same table of figures published by Lawrence Gonzi to justify the surcharge shows that Government’s decision to levy a surcharge on utility bills is based on increased losses Enemalta has been making since 1999. It also confirms that the surcharge, to be introduced as from 1 January 2005, is not linked to the increase in the price of crude oil, which was the often quoted benchmark by Investments Minister Austin Gatt prior to the budget.
Enemalta last reviewed its tariffs in 1999 when the Nationalist government notched down utility prices after the previous Labour administration had raised them exorbitantly. Five years later Government continues to quantify losses and costs in terms of the revised 1999 tariffs, leading one to believe that the exercise undertaken then was nothing more than political expediency.
Request for MCESD meeting
The UHM’s request for a meeting of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development to discuss the surcharge issue in the light of reports that appeared in this newspaper over the last two weeks questioning Government’s justification for the tax has not yet been acceded to.
MCESD Chairman Victor Scicluna confirmed to MaltaToday that he received the UHM’s request to convene a meeting on the surcharge controversy. “I have forwarded the request to Government and in all probability it is a question of just setting a date for the meeting,” Scicluna said.
The major unions have gone on record saying that during the pre-budget briefing on the fuel surcharge, Government officials made no reference to the difference between crude oil and fuel oil, and that losses were being calculated utilising 1999 as a baseline.
It also transpires that the social partners were never presented with a hard copy of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report which the Investments Ministry utilised as the basis for its argumentation in favour of a surcharge.
kurt@newsworksltd.com
|
