Why do issues in Malta seemingly drag on forever? Is it not about time that the long-standing problem over the distribution of gas in cylinders to consumers be settled once and for all?
The problem arises time and again. Had the interest of the consumer been placed above that of all others in the business, the matter would surely have been solved long ago. However, as in any other issues involving rights, legitimate or presumed, it is never easy to settle outstanding matters.
In the wash of arguments and counter arguments usually put forward by the distributors, suppliers and the regulatory authority, it is the consumers’ watchdog that is making most sense.
Reacting to the authority’s public consultation document, the Malta Consumer Association accused it of allowing a monopoly. This, it holds, will inhibit a competitive and fair market.
The association is for the liberalisation of the gas distribution market, arguing, correctly, that the interests of the consumer should always come before those of the operators. Much lip-service is often paid to the interest of the consumer but this is often either neglected or, for various vested reasons, not given the attention it deserves.
In its document, the authority proposed the retention of the door-to-door gas distribution system based on territorial exclusivity. It said its proposal followed a government decision to declare the door-to-door selling of liquefied petroleum gas in cylinders to be a service of general economic interest under the Competition Act. Of course it is, but why should there be exclusivity?
The authority is proposing to issue a “limited number” of authorisations for the distribution of gas, each of which would have its own territorial exclusivity.
Whom does such a system serve best: the distributor or the consumer? The Consumer Association argues that a monopoly leads to arrogance and breaches of consumer rights. This because operators control the market in whichever way suits them best.
The association does not mince words. It believes exclusivity ought to be removed and the service be run by anyone prepared and equipped to offer a good and safe service.
This ought to be the guiding light to the authority when it comes to decide on the issue. The distributors will, no doubt, cry foul as they insist that an agreement they had signed with Enemalta some years ago is still valid. However, to make the issue more complicated, one of the gas suppliers denies this, arguing some time ago that it had been declared null and void by the Office for Fair Competition.
Liquigas, which also has its own direct distribution system, says it will defend its right to retain the cylinder distribution licence covering all Malta that had been issued by the resources authority. It also argues that geographical exclusivity in distribution runs in conflict with competition law and also with EU rules.
The other supplier, Easygas, has lauded a proposal for the adoption of the multi-flag system, under which distributors sell gas cylinders from other providers. This makes sense as well.
Also of benefit to the consumer is a proposed requirement for authorised sellers to run a 24-hour call centre and offer an emergency service.
When Malta has moved ahead so much in so many new aspects of economic and social activity, it would appear to be in the best interest of the consumer to have the gas distribution system liberalised.