Twisted knickers or none at all

A friend of mine, not at all in the habit of making political comments, summarised the St John's Co-Cathedral and the water and electricity bill situations with a touch of elegance: It seems the government has got its knickers in a twist over these two issues, he told me. My inelegant - crude, if you like - reply was that I thought the government has actually lost its knickers.

The outcome to the St John's underground saga has supplied enough evidence of no-knickers-left in its regard. After the Archbishop was embroiled in a last-gasp joint political statement with the Prime Minister recommending a deep rethink by the Cathedral foundation, which saved Lawrence Gonzi potential blushes in the hours-away debate called by the opposition, it emerged that Mgr Paul Cremona had been of the opinion that proposed project fell to the representatives of Church and State to consider quite a while back.

Inevitable queries: Had the Archbishop made his view known to the Prime Minister? It appears he did. So why did the PM drag his feet, leading Mgr Cremona into an embarrassing joining of hands through the public statement in the political context of the impending debate?

As it is, that particular pair of lost knickers is now lying about in shreds somewhere or other. They can never be worn again - the St John's project will not go on. I doubt that any professional could be persuaded to make an environment impact assessment to examine what is now an academic point, just for the heck of it, though that would be interesting.

The water and electricity bills issue remains alive and kicking. Verily and truly, knickers to cover the prevailing immodesty are nowhere to be seen. The mess grows through a bewildering sequence of events.

The Malta Resources Authority (MRA), after apparently having been ignored for months, and also not taking any initiative itself to demonstrate it was not a regulator in name only, is now kicking the ball up front. About time, one might say; but then it turns out that the regulator is not a striker ready to do one's bit and play to its flair - it expects to be coached by the public, if it can only stop booing.

The MRA has called for expressions of opinion from among the general public as to how it should proceed. The authority, rather than acting on its own steam, wishes first of all to consult Joe Public.

Though the politics behind it are easy to read, I do not see the logic of this move. The authority is appointed to act authoritatively. In the course of doing that it can hire the services of consultants to guide it when the going gets too technical for it, or when it feels it needs a professional shoulder to lean on.

What it should not do is to expect the largely non-technical public to come forward with technical proposals. It might be that this is one way whereby the MRA is obliquely inviting the unions to submit their updated opinions. If that is so it seems to be an unduly roundabout way of going about it.

Once the MRA has made its invitation to one and all, here are a few two morsels for it to chew on: In the first instance it should take the government to task for allowing Enemalta to be so late with its formal audited accounts, as if it were a one-illiterate-man job. Then it comes forth with audited accounts in the space of a couple of days, for 2005/06 and 2006/07. The authority should question why the delay and how come the sudden rush - were the two sets of accounts available, though unpublished?

It should also demand the management accounts for the uncovered period up to December 2008, though they will not tell a full story.

Meanwhile the MRA should get professional assistance to determine the fixed costs of the corporation which would be used to help construct a costing formula. The formula should be reviewed annually, on the basis of the up-to-date audited accounts to be published not later than three months after the ending of Enemalta's financial year.

Such professional assistance should also determine by how much Enemalta's operating costs are to be adjusted in respect of avoidable inefficiencies.

That established, the MRA should decide how to input the variable cost of fuel into the formula, and how frequently. The government's decision on the frequency being once every six months is totally unacceptable. The adjustment should be made at least every two months, on the basis of the real cost of purchasing fuel up to the revaluation date, adjusted for any hedging gains or losses.

Enemalta's purchasing schedule might not allow for such frequency. If so, the reasons should be clearly explained in the context of exploring whether the buying schedule can be altered. Should revaluing every two months be impossible because of the schedule, the MRA should make Enemalta work out how three months can be made possible.

The resulting financial formula, while ensuring proper full cost recovery, will not be economically correct, since it would not allow for market failure. That can be discussed further as we move along. Also, it should be clear that the formula has nothing to do with whatever social assistance the government wants to give to low-income users, and any desired eco bias. They should be discussed separately with the unions on the basis of agreed statistics also reviewable annually, with the National Office of Statistics playing its part.

For those who may feel my approach is too simplistic, I simply say - all the more reason why it should not take the MRA and Enemalta long to get going with it, and if need be, bring intricacies in later. Not wearing knickers is neither a nice nor an efficient habit. It is actually most unbecoming of sedate entities like Enemalta and the government.