Over two months ago, a petrol station in Rabat put down the price of diesel in what consumers hoped signalled the rebirth of a competitive fuel price market.

But it was not to be. No sooner had the owner decided to pass on to the consumer the benefit of better terms offered by the supplier in the shape of a slight reduction in the price of diesel than he was immediately stopped in his tracks.

The station owner claimed his supplier told him that, unless he put the price back up, the rise in the profit margin offered to him would be withdrawn. Following the pubic outrage that followed, the Consumers’ Association filed a complaint with the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority, but the matter appears to have stopped there.

Nothing has been heard of the case since then, leaving this newspaper practically alone in repeatedly raising the issue.

What irked many at the time was a government statement saying that the fuel market in Malta was liberalised and all those operating in the market were free to compete on prices.

So, if the market is liberalised, why is the consumer not benefiting from it? In places abroad where the fuel market is really liberalised, consumers benefit directly through the different prices offered in a competitive market. When one petrol filling station in Malta dared break what amounts to a monopolistic system, he was stopped from doing so there and then. Why?

One would have expected the authority to come out in defence of the consumer and decide on the matter expeditiously, but it has not done so up to now. Why is it taking so long? Why is the government, or the Consumers Association for that matter, not pressing the authority to speed up its investigation? Would it be unreasonable to question the effectiveness of the authority if it takes this long to decide on a complaint of this nature?

The authority may think it is fulfilling its objectives but, according to a recent Eurobarometer survey, only 12 per cent would turn to the competition authority when they need to file a complaint over lack of competition – the lowest ranking within the European Union.

Also, 76 per cent had never heard of a competition-related decision having been taken by a competition authority against a company. These and other results that emerge from the survey suggest that, although the authority may be engaged in useful work, it does not seem to be regarded as a very effective protector of the consumer.

Were it to be considered effective, this would have been reflected in the responses given in the survey. The case of the Rabat petrol station owner has left a sour note as it shows that the consumer does not enjoy the kind of prompt protection expected from those purposely charged with this task.

The authority was set up to, among other things, maintain and encourage competition; safeguard the interests of consumers and enhance their welfare; promote sound business practices, and to adopt and coordinate standards in relation to products or services. It is empowered to enforce Competition Act articles by investigating, determining and suppressing practices that restrict competition on the market. One article prohibits cartels involving price-fixing, market sharing and the allocation of production and sales quotas.

Although the market in Malta is small, the island once had a competitive fuel market. Attempts at bringing about competition should not therefore be discouraged or, worse, suppressed.