More criticism on tariffs

More Labour MPs continued their criticism of the utility tariffs, saying that consumers, the industry and tourism were hardest hit.

Speaking in Parliament during the debate on the opposition motion to revoke two legal notices setting the new electricity and water supply tariffs, Silvio Parnis said the utility tariffs were hitting hardest the low- and medium-income families.

The people were fed up being taken for a ride. The latest Eurostat statistics showed that at around 29 per cent, Malta had the heaviest increase in fuel prices of all EU member states.

Marie Louise Coleiro Preca warn-ed that there was a threat to democracy because the government was ignoring the voice of the people. Despite the government's attempt to help, the new tariffs would negatively affect the hotel industry.

The MHRA had said that the operating costs would go up by 16 per cent.

Leo Brincat said Malta was highly dependent on oil for its energy needs. But while several measures were being taken, there was no national plan with regard to the energy sector and each initiative was being taken in a vacuum.

Those who spent more than ten per cent on energy supplies were considered as living in energy poverty. The country was paying a high price for dirty technology at the cost of taxpayers.

Charles Mangion said he would have expected the minister to explain how the utility tariffs were higher now than in 2008, when the price of oil was much lower now than then. There was no internal control of oil prices. Why had the committee overseeing oil purchases been abolished and the task allocated to the chairman?

The Malta Resources Authority had reported last December that apart from the international oil prices Enemalta was recovering all costs, including its losses on oil purchases.

Even the discretional element of Enemalta was being included in the prices, and the interest on the corporation's debts amounted to €25 million yearly.

Gino Cauchi said the government had lost all sense of social conscience, and it had earned itself a certificate for full-scale failure.

It saw the MCESD as a mere rubber stamp when earlier it had promised to consult and discuss the price hikes with its members. But when the government had met the social partners, they had been told it would discuss anything except the utility rates. It had only been interested in how families could reduce their consumption.

The majority of people were hurt but the government was riding roughshod over their feelings, jeopardising the future of families and children.

The motion was defeated by 34 votes in favour and 35 against.