Matthew Xuereb
Fuel surcharge could climb to 115 per cent
Truckers in France block traffic in a protest against rising fuel prices on the Paris-Lille motorway, northern France, yesterday. The nationwide day of action announced by the main haulage associations included roadblocks and so-called "snail" operations by convoys of slow-moving trucks and was expected to disrupt traffic severely, especially on highways. Photo: Reuters.
As the price of crude oil surged to a record high topping $143 per barrel yesterday, the government is today expected to announce a revised fuel surcharge for the coming months.
Infrastructure Minister Austin Gatt hinted in Parliament yesterday that the surcharge was expected to hover around the 115 per cent mark, up from the 50 per cent that has been levied during the past six months.
This means, for example, that for a €50 bill, consumers would pay an additional €57.50 in fuel surcharge, having to fork out a total of €107.50.
The new tariff will be in force till the end of September or October when a new system of tariffs would be introduced.
Without hedging, the surcharge would have been 160 per cent. The government is now studying how it could shoulder more of this burden through its subsidy to the corporation.
The General Workers' Union and the Malta Labour Party were quick to react to Dr Gatt's speech.
The Labour Party said the government should not look at the power tariffs and the surcharge as a simple accounting exercise. The movements in the international price of oil did not only affect government finances. Therefore, any measures taken should not be aimed solely at balancing the books but should take into account the needs of Maltese families, especially those with a low income.
Furthermore, the government could not ignore the effect this surcharge would have on small and medium sized businesses and on people's purchasing power.
On its part, the GWU said the government should discuss the surcharge on water and electricity bills with the social partners within the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD) before deciding the increase.
The GWU said that, during a recent MCESD meeting, it had asked the government not to announce any increases in the surcharge before discussing the issue with the social partners. On that occasion the government did not seem to be against discussing the matter.
The union remarked that any increase would continue to add to the burden on families when they were already carrying more than they could handle.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
Updated: Shot migrant in critical...
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Yana Mintoff: Family speaking to...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Pierre Giusti
Jul 1st 2008, 18:46
It is totally amazing how years of talk on renewable energy have not been properly implemented yet. The government itself barely uses solar power at all and wastes amazing amounts of the peoples' money lighting up streets, for example, with lamposts that could but don't have solar panels to generate part of their own power comsumption. The money saved could be added to the subsidy given to the corporation. The sun is Malta's main renewable energy source and it doesn't take Einstein to recognise this. It should have been neither rising oil prices nor carbon dioxide emmisions that force any government to seek such energy but simply not to ignore it's blazing presence! All government buildings should have been covered in solar panels years ago, but only a token few have been in some supposed gesture aimed at impressing us. Well very few are impressed. Less talk and more action please. At this rate there will soon be so many more unemployed people that even more "funds" will be sought from our taxes to pay their benifits as well.........or maybe they can be the ones to install all the solar panels?
joe muscat
Jul 1st 2008, 14:18
Money no Problem....Halluhom ha joghlew il prezzijiet....these where used several times from the PN. Now it came in reality, but poor families with low income.
Keith Chircop
Jul 1st 2008, 14:10
The writing was on the way aeons ago, but the government didn't do anything about it, except talk about building a minute windfarm on Comino ten years ago.
Malcolm Borg
Jul 1st 2008, 13:59
Well done J. Stafrace. I think that is the solution in the long run. If just 10% of the money spent to buy oil is spent on renewable energies the problem would be more manageable.
VINCENT A GALEA
Jul 1st 2008, 13:24
May I please just ask the powers that be why, instead of spending a lot of time, effort and expence in finding the best way how to increase the surcharge/tariffs, the same energies (pun intended) are not used to fuel (another pun!) the possibilities of introducing without further ado the use of wind and solar power.
joseph stafrace
Jul 1st 2008, 11:50
If the government is so worried about the rising cost of of fuel used to power the Enemalta power stations; why does it not finance the installation of photovoltaic panels on people's homes? This would be a one time investment which in the long run will pay for itself . Furthermore surplus electricity will be fed back into the electricity grid without the corporation having to pay back for its use. A capital investment of over 8,000 euros to install a photovoltiac systemis beyond the reach of the average family.
J. Stivala
Jul 1st 2008, 10:37
It is very easy for Austin Gatt to determine a 95 or 115% surcharge increase, given that he and his fellow Ministers enjoy a Eur 30K+ salary, chauffeur driven car, free telephone, free travelling and a bevy of other benefits. They do not feel the pinch.