What was meant to be a clarification meeting on the energy tariffs between 11 unions and the Malta Resources Authority has ended up confusing the situation much more than it was previously.

Last Friday, the 11 unions, including the General Workers Union, the Malta Union of Midwives and Nurses and the Malta Union of Teachers, claimed victory saying that the MRA had told them it will ask the government to revise the water and electricity rates backdated to 1 October.

A few minutes later, the MRA issued a statement insisting that there had been no talk of backdating a revision; only a suggestion that the rates ought to be reviewed when the new bills are issued for the period starting in March.

The unions have not accepted this explanation and are telling people not to pay their bills before they are revised. The MRA said that had it wanted to speak of backdating a revision of the tariffs, it would have said so at a press conference called just after the meeting with the unions ended.

And so the confusion persists. Who is saying the truth?

Let’s set the record straight. The matter was mishandled right from the start. We are still debating an issue that should have been resolved way back in October, when the surcharge system was replaced by new and revised tariffs.

The government should have also been clearer on the way the system is to operate. It should have explained it in more detail and embarked on an information campaign that highlighted the changes and told the people about ways how they could cut down on energy wastage.

As it happened, when the system was eventually revised, there were too many loopholes and too much room for interpretation.

The delay in the issuing of the bills with the new rates – simply so as not to rock the economic boat which was already in dire straits because of the international financial collapse in the last quarter of 2008 – also did not help. Neither did the fact that it has taken two months for this “clarification” meeting between the unions and the MRA to be held.

Only the people who were present for the meeting know what was said – but the two conflicting versions have continued to add fuel to the fire.

If one were to believe the unions’ version – and they are prepared to vouch in court that their version is the correct one – then one asks why the MRA kept silent while the bills were being sent when it knew that it would be asking for a revision, and a backdated one too.

If, on the other hand, one were to believe the version given by the MRA, then one wonders what the unions’ intentions really are. This is, after all, not an industrial dispute and one questions whether unions have the right to ask consumers not to pay their bills in time. Are the unions prepared to take the legal responsibility for their actions?

If the MRA is the one saying the truth, why are the unions behaving the way they are doing? Is the confusion they are creating the only way by which they could save their face after they increased the people’s expectations that the energy bills will be revised?

Whatever the case, the issue needs to be resolved – and quickly too. This uncertainty is not beneficial at a time when we should be concentrating on other matters which are more important, such as the need to make a concerted effort that will see the country survive the present difficult times.

The government has seemingly kept its distance in the argument. But it must intervene and bring the issue to an end, once and for all.