The issue which arose last week over the monopolistic status held by gas distributors was surreal to say the least, and harder to understand how a monopolistic status could be retained as the gas market is being liberalised and more than one operator are now supplying the industry.

Thankfully, the issue was resolved at the eleventh hour as supplies were running low for restaurants at a time when many people dine out to celebrate the festive season.

Nevertheless, the issue of how a monopoly has been allowed to continue is bound to be questioned by the industry as gas distribution remains intrinsically linked to the past with practices which have been practically abolished as markets are liberalised for the benefit of consumers.

Another issue of concern is the fact that the monopolistic status was defended and allowed to retain its status despite the liberalisation of the gas market. With Liquigas taking over the gas operations from Enemalta, a few months ago, and Easygas entering the scene last week, businesses were naturally expecting that the gas market would be completely liberalised and their costs revised accordingly as competition forces regulate the market. The level of service was also expected to improve as more than one operator distributes gas to businesses.

This will clearly not be the case as gas distribution continues to be the responsibility of a few licence holders through an agreement signed many years ago with government. This agreement remains valid until today since it was never revised as the market was liberalised.

Liquigas has argued, quite rightly, that it should be free to choose how its products are distributed and showed its willingness to upgrade the service provided to customers. Easygas, on the other hand, signalled that it had no problem with its cylinders being sold next to Liquigas cylinders. The agreement inherited from Enemalta, however, cannot be breached and it is up to government to resolve this issue.

Another consideration has to be made on the threat posed to restaurants and other catering establishments last week. As their supplies dwindled, restaurants were somewhat resigned on the fact that their supplies would run out and they would have had to close down for the weekend. Apart from the inconvenience caused to patrons who would have been let down by their establishment, a potential disregard to the business concern has been shown by the GRTU which represents both gas distributors and certain catering and entertainment establishments. This disregard towards businesses goes against the very nature of the GRTU which should understand the damage caused to businesses when their operations are disrupted.

The GRTU is right in defending the interests of its members but the claim of €6m to renege their monopolistic status is questionable. The €6m figure should have been broken down to explain what it includes. The crux of the issue is that monopolies are hard to accept when liberalised markets are governed by competition among companies providing the same service. Government should express whether it is comfortable with the retention of a monopolistic status and whether it intends to intervene in the best interest of business establishments affected by the status quo.