Whatever the Finance Minister comes up with in his next Budget, there is absolutely no doubt that Labour will find fault with it. It is in the nature of a parliamentary opposition to do this and Labour in Malta is no exception. But it is not just Labour that is likely to come down hard on the Budget; employers will surely be highly critical too, unless, of course, the minister finds a way to ease the burden expected to be imposed on them by the cost-of-living wage adjustment (COLA), which seems unlikely, given the difficult financial situation facing the government.

In any case, as in past years, the Budget debate will go on and on until Christmas. By that time, most would have been sick of all the talk about COLA, deficit, subsidies, jobs, growth and so many other related subjects that usually fill up the country's pre- and post-Budget agenda.

The Budget debate was this year kicked off by a document that was immediately deemed far too technical in nature. Most of the discussion centred on COLA, with employers bringing up the impact this was expected to have on manufacturing industry and tourism. As usual too, trade unions held their ground, arguing it ought to be given to all workers across the board, as has been the practice since it was launched.

The Finance Minister has gone on record saying that COLA has helped give the country industrial stability, something that foreign investors sought when they considered possible new investment locations. The trade unions concur with his view but economists, true to the saying that they rarely agree among themselves, differ.

A few play down the maxim put forward by some that the increase has to be tied to productivity; others hold that the wage mechanism has usurped the trade unions' role in wage setting. When the debate reached its peak, the Prime Minister proposed a fresh attempt in the effort to draw up a social pact. Again, views differed, with some dismissing this as mere whistling in the wind and others pointing out that there was no time to knock one into shape before the presentation of the Budget.

In any case, argued others, the social partners within the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development already had before them a position paper that more or less resembled a social pact. Then, when the discussion was thought to have been practically exhausted, the Prime Minister added another ingredient to the boiling pot, an upward revision of the energy and water rates.

This has angered both the employers and the trade unions but the government appears to be standing firm, arguing that the tariffs depended on the price at which the energy corporation bought the fuel. And, since the fuel rates had risen again, there was no way out of the problem. That may indeed be the case but, one must note, it seems the government has learnt very little, if anything, from the mistakes it made in the way it had (mis)handled the matter when it raised the utility rates originally.

The Finance Minister had made it clear earlier in the pre-Budget debate that it was the government's plan to continue removing subsidies. It is unlikely for the government to backtrack on its policy on this as, otherwise, it would have to raise its subsidy to the energy corporation and make its job of balancing the books even more difficult than it is at present.