Hours of intense debate in the House of Representatives on the financial accounts of Enemalta Corporation did not produce a convincing answer to the question burning away for several months: With the price of crude oil plummeting why did the Maltese people get no relief from sky high fuel rates before April?
The question has nothing to do with the central point made by the government side during the parliamentary exchanges. Which was correct: fuel prices in Malta cannot be divorced from the international cost of the oil derivatives used by the corporation.
That point continues to be widely resisted. The opposition, for instance, only edged towards it after its leader stepped in to correct a gaffe by his party's general secretary. In the euphoria after the Labour Party's massive victory in the European Parliament elections, the party official declared that a Labour government would slash water and electricity tariffs.
Asked about that "commitment" in an interview, already implied in some loose talk in the EP campaign, the Labour leader made it clear that he was not making such a commitment - if he became Prime Minister he would have to see and examine the situation first. He got predictable stick for saying that. But he was right to be clear about the nonsense.
No government can say that it will unhinge water and electricity tariffs from the cost of their inputs. The provider can say that it will do its utmost to ensure that such costs would reflect maximum possible efficiency.
That would take into account the type of equipment used and the number and productivity of the human resources who carry out all the necessary operations.
It would also attempt to purchase fuel inputs at the best market price, using hedging instruments as professionally as could be, without any iron-cast guarantee that thereby it would get the best possible average time over price since hedging does not equate to prophecy. All that satisfied is that it would come out with the best possible commercial tariffs to be paid according to use, as is correct and fair. The government would then decide how much to spend on social outlays to mitigate the tariffs burden for the socially deserving.
That is a reality scenario that no politician can avoid. The government is right to stress it. The Opposition Leader is correct to signal he would take it into account if he wins the next general election.
That so many people continue to defy reality is due to the way Enemalta's depreciation costs and production inefficiencies have been ignored over the years, with the Nationalist Administration responsible for inaction for so long after it gained office in 1987. Consumers are used to distorted and unreal tariffs. It will take time to change that.
That does not justify the government's silence and fresh inaction once the basic oil price plummeted from $147 a barrel. It never truly explained satisfactorily why the surcharge could not be lowered and why tariffs were then set so high. With the oil price rising again, already doubling from its recent low point, consumers have to be assured that they will not be paying through their noses for continuing inefficiencies.
That assurance was not given in last week's debate. Holding out the hope that new smart meters will offer some partial solution was, if not a red herring, inconsequential. Smart meters will measure consumption; they will do little to introduce smartness on the supply side, that is, Enemalta's operations. That is where the issue lies and what has to continue to be addressed with maximum vigour. The government says it is being tackled. The tariffs that continued to be imposed did not bear out that claim.
Moving forward, the cost of operations has to be central to the cost of tariffs, while never losing sight of the reality scenario of the shifting international market price of inputs, plus the social factor. That is where people want to be reassured.
Such reassurance does not come from the government inviting the opposition for "talks on utility tariffs" (The Times, June 19). It is up to the government to carry its responsibilities. The role of the opposition is primarily to watch over the Administration and to speak out where it feels it should be criticised. If the opposition is unfair, voters will ultimately realise that and make it pay. The Prime Minister has been stressing that voters are intelligent. At least as intelligent as smart meters, one might add.