It is all very well for the Infrastructure Minister, Austin Gatt, to speak about the "point of principle" which, he believes, is "fundamental to understanding how tariff shifts should operate". Indeed, his explanation makes a great deal of sense in normal circumstances but the circumstances are not normal, which is why the social partners protested when, following the rise in the price of oil, the government, once again, raised water and electricity rates.

Writing about economically-effective subsidies, the minister responded to the concerns expressed by The Times and other commentators who, he said, suggested that tariff increases might need to be "cushioned" by setting a rate that was lower than actually required, "an indirect subsidy that is obviously either financed by Enemalta directly or by the government paying the difference to Enemalta".

This newspaper was merely conveying the concerns of the social partners over the rise but it made it clear, too, that it was difficult not to agree with the government that the time for subsidy is over. In principle, The Times has never quibbled over its stand against subsidy. However, the key point it made was that "when the matter had been left pending for so many years and when the corporation has been in need of reforms aimed at greatly improving its efficiency, the logical way forward was for the government to bring about the change in rates gradually", not, that is, suddenly.

This is precisely the same point made by the Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry, which said, just before the urgent meeting of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development that, while it recognised the "sustainability problem that Enemalta faces, enterprise cannot be burdened by the sudden increase, in part resulting from the lack of careful and long-term planning of Malta's electricity generation over the past three decades".

Had the decision to remove the subsidy been taken in times of sustained economic growth, the situation would have been different but these are not normal times because, despite the slight rise in economic growth in the third quarter of last year, the economy is not out of the woods yet. In the opinion of the Chamber, as expressed before the council meeting, it was never too late for the government to reconsider the new utility rates. It felt reconsideration of the tariffs was justified because they had not been discussed within the MCESD.

This is another point made by this newspaper. True, it is the government that finally decides but, for an administration that made dialogue a political mission, failure to consult the council in time is a serious failure, an indication that it is losing its previous keen sense of responsiveness.

The government is now taking a different route, which, as already indicated, makes a great deal of sense. Rather than subsidising the energy corporation directly, a policy under which, as explained by the minister, all account holders (250,000) benefited to the tune of €560 each, the government will now be giving a subsidy directly to households and to firms that need assistance. On the basis of the social partners' reaction, it would seem that the number of companies requiring assistance is expected to be larger than that which needed help following the economic slowdown. If this is the case, the "pot", which the minister said has been set aside for this purpose, would have to be raised considerably, as suggested by one social partner.