Cynthia Busuttil, Matthew Xuereb
MCESD meeting inconclusive
A two-hour long discussion among social partners yesterday did not yield any positive results as the government did not present its fresh proposals on the utility tariffs.
Representatives of the social partners sitting on Malta Council for Economic and Social Development said the talks could have never led to anything conclusive without the proposals, which are expected to be presented by the government during another meeting today. It could not be ascertained why these were not tabled yesterday.
The original proposals, announced on October 1, were slammed by all social partners who argued they would have drastic repercussions on families and industry and lead to unemployment.
Sources said that during yesterday's meeting the government suggested changing the present system of subsidies to a payment system. This was accepted by the social partners.
The sources said the government also confirmed a three-year transition period for the new water and electricity tariffs but maintained that these will amount to more than the present tariffs plus the 95 per cent surcharge.
As they were leaving Phoenicia Hotel, in Floriana, where the meeting was held, the social partners remained tight-lipped about the meeting's outcome.
The representatives of the Union Ħaddiema Magħqudin, the General Workers' Union and the Chamber for Small and Medium Enterprises - GRTU said they would not comment before today's meeting.
Stefano Mallia, from the Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise, said there was "lots of will for consensus" to which the president of the Malta Hotel and Restaurants Association, Kevin De Cesare, added: "But we still have to find a solution".
Finance Minister Tonio Fenech, Infrastructure Minister Austin Gatt and the Parliamentary Secretary for Public Dialogue Chris Said were present for the meeting but did not comment either.
MCESD chairman Sonny Portelli described the meeting as "good" but reiterated there were no conclusions.
"We are waiting for the (revised) figures. These are works in progress and we need to give everyone the chance to continue with their work and develop ideas," he said.
Asked if an agreement would be reached today, Mr Portelli was non-committal: "We hope so..."
Sources said that during the meeting employers asked for the tariffs to remain unchanged in the first year, with the transition taking place over the following two years.
They argued that they were having a bad year because of the international recession.
The unions also asked whether the consumer would be paying for this one-year capping and requested the average consumption of about 1,500 units per person to be reasonably priced.
The social partners and the government agreed to meet again today to continue discussing the utility bills.
Another MCESD meeting is scheduled for Saturday to discuss the budget.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Petrol price up 6c
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
5 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
P.Schembri
Oct 23rd 2008, 21:43
@J. Galea. If you're expecting Mr. Martinelli to pay his share, you're wrong. He is comfortable living in Canada. He just here only to giving a helping to the Government. From Canada,he is dictating what we Maltese, should do and don't under the present government. He's telling us to grin and bear it, because we're in Heaven on Earth under the PN. This government can do no wrong. It has the divine right to rule over us. He'll soon be telling us that Malta can't survive without the Nationalist Government in Government.
John Galea
Oct 23rd 2008, 15:36
@ Mr Martinelli
It seems you are very happy to pay for all the inefficiencies that the civil sector, under the guise of 'Enemalta' has incurred.
Are we going to rack up another I BILLION EURO public deficit before we decide to let the private sector make a meal of the mess the public sector did???
Government should only regulate and it should not be involved in the direct running of any service provider.
Food for thought.
N.Tabone
Oct 23rd 2008, 12:01
Yes Mr. Galea you will still pay through your nose for water/electricity & gas because this is not to pay for the increase in oil, if it was really like that then we should have cheaper petrol in our stations because that is what we were promised like a month ago from Minister Gatt! but it was never like that, its to pay for the mismanagment in Enemalta! As usual the consumer pays the price! Prepare to pay more if more workers are laid off becuase you will have to pay relief too! :) Good Luck! L-aqwa li il finanzi fis sod!
J Martinelli
Oct 23rd 2008, 11:56
@ John Galea
I do not know what the government has in mind but if I had to make a decision, and to answer your two simple questions, I will try to give you two simple answers.
1. Today's price of oil which you quoted at $67.50 has nothing to do with the price paid for the fuel being burned today to fire up your computer. Today's fuel was purchased probably around the time oil prices were peaking. A solution would be that the new tariffs are based on the price being somewhere between $75.00 and $120.00 because no one will convince me that these lower prices are going to last. The rates (tariffs) should then be adjusted quarterly to reflect the trend.
2. The 'consumer' and the 'taxpayer' are the same people. Anyway you slice the banana. in the end, it is always the taxpayer who pays. In this particular issue, unlike taxes, the consumer has a limited control over what he consumes. Therefore if the consumer will not heed conservation, then he should pay for his excesses.
Your comment about the shipyards is premature. There is a general consensus out there that no alternative to privatization exists.
John Galea
Oct 23rd 2008, 10:29
Yesterday the price of oil closed at USD 67.50.
Can someone pls explain to a simple consumer how the proposed tariff is to reflect the further reduced cost of oil since demand for energy from China is predicted to level off? If the price of oil goes down further, will the tariffs proposed remain in place?
I get the feeling that this is the dockyards all over again with the consumer, instead of the taxpayer footing the bill.
A simple answer to a simple question suffices.