A meeting representatives of the trade unions had with the Prime Minister on Tuesday may lead to a turning point in the stiff national opposition to the new water and energy rates. The meeting came about following the protest the unions held in Valletta last Friday at which they called on the government to go back to the negotiating table and revise the rates. At Tuesday's meeting, the unions submitted a set of proposals aimed at easing the burden and, according to a spokesman for Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, the government would now be studying them in the light of its already declared aims of discouraging waste and ensuring that consumers pay for what is consumed.

Up to the holding of this meeting, the general impression was that the government did not seem to be listening well enough to the people's call for a reconsideration of the sharp rise in tariffs. Following the general outcry and the latest meeting, perhaps a way out will now be found to get over the hurdle. As it remarked some time ago, The Times would have preferred to see the rates being staggered over a period. The trade unions had called for an outright revision of the rates and the social partners in the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development suggested the postponement of the rise till April next year.

When he last commented on the issue last Sunday, Dr Gonzi said he was prepared to meet the unions but he made it clear he was only willing to do so as long as the talks revolved around giving incentives to energy savers.

Finance Minister Tonio Fenech said that, while there was room for tweaking the rates and reassessing how certain categories could be further helped, the government was not planning to overhaul the system as it had been set out. The Prime Minister was quoted as saying on Sunday: "Unions cannot ask to keep everything as it is. We need to eliminate waste and incentivise those who opt for alternative energy".

Few would disagree with Dr Gonzi over his government's determination to cut waste; the government's policy to eliminate subsidies is correct, too, but is it wise to do this in such a drastic manner, and, more importantly, at a time when economic difficulties are bound to increase in the wake of the recession? The government seems to think that the people can well take the rise. In its opinion, those that do not, about 30,000 - not an insignificant figure - are being taken care of. But, clearly, the people are in disagreement with the government's view about this. If the government's main preoccupation is over the need to cut waste and to promote a new culture insofar as the use of water and energy is concerned then, surely, it can very well do this over time.

The government has now put itself into a tight corner, when it could have well reached its aims through a wiser programme. The Administration is, of course, right in not throwing caution to the wind when it comes to budgeting but perhaps a wiser choice in allocations would have avoided all the concern it has caused to so many people, to industry and other economic sectors. Frittering away national energy on controversies that arise out of wrong planning, rather than wrong aims, as is the case over the water and energy rates, is counter-productive.