Whether and what the government should or should not be subsidising is a debate that has raged on for decades in Malta. It has been a debate between protectionism and the free market, between a leftist and rightist political philosophy.

Malta’s accession to the European Union, however, put the issue to rest once and for all, but the country is still left with its legacies and a time frame in which to bring closure to the issues once and for all.

More than that, the country’s populace has been left with a mindset that is largely geared to expectations of subsidies.

There is little doubt that the practice of subsidisation is no longer viable, not according to European Union rules, nor according to the free market ethos of today’s day and age.

But, on the other hand, when the retention of a subsidy is promised by a government, that promise should not be so bluntly reneged upon, especially when that subsidy involves a product that households and businesses rely upon on a daily basis.

The subsidy in question here is the one on gas, which was somewhat abruptly removed on Monday although the government had pledged to retain the subsidy during last October’s parliamentary debate on the privatisation of Enemalta’s gas operations and the transfer of land to the successful bidder to set up shop.

That October night last year, the Opposition, quite rightly, raised the rather pertinent question of how the move would affect the price of gas, to which government representatives quickly replied that the government would be retaining its subsidisation of gas for the next three years, so as to provide for stability in its pricing.

But last week, just over nine months after the pledge was made, the government announced it was removing the subsidy.

The issue here is not the validity of the subsidy, which the government says had cost it more than €600,000 over the last four months, but rather one of the government keeping its word.

Perhaps households, on the strength of the pledge, had opted for a gas cooker or water heater instead of the electric varieties so as to save money during lean times, and at a point in time when the future prices of electricity were still a hotly disputed and unquantifiable issue. Perhaps certain businesses did the same.

It is curious how the debate that has raged over the last week about the rise in the price of gas has centred on the increase itself, with little or no reference to the government’s pledge to continue to subsidise the price of gas.

There is no doubt that subsidies in all their forms need to be removed, and that consumers should pay the real price for what they are consuming. The same applies to the even more controversial debate over water and electricity tariffs. Households and businesses cannot realistically expect the state to cough up for their consumption or for their excesses.

But the government should be taken to task on the gas subsidy issue, and it should provide an explanation as to why the subsidy has been removed despite its previous assertions to the contrary.

Again, the argument is not over whether to subsidise or not – the answer to that should be an unconditional ‘no’. The heavy subsidies given to the Malta Shipyards over the years had a near crippling effect on the state’s coffers. That has now, thankfully, been brought to an end by EU rules, which leave little room for political bickering on such a politically sensitive issue.

Imagine, in today’s incredibly lean economic times, if the government was still doling out millions to keep the operations at the ’yards afloat. In today’s extremely precarious economic climate, the government can no longer afford to give quarter to any such notions.

One subsidy that will remain in place, at least for a limited period of time, is that on bus routes. The end is, however, in sight. As reported in today’s issue, with the privatisation of the scheduled public transportation system the government intends to continue compensating the operator for any shortfalls in the numbers of passengers carried – for one year only, after which the operation will be expected to stand on its own two feet. It will also compensate the new operator, and it is appearing more than likely that the operator will indeed be a new one, for shortfalls attached to its public service obligation. But that compensation is expected to be granted only for the first years of the new service, after which that too will be brought to an end. Moreover, the fact that the government has given a 50 per cent weighting to the latter in the tendering process speaks volumes of the government’s intentions to do away with that subsidy as well.

Then there is the very delicate issue of the cost of living adjustment, which, in a manner of speaking, constitutes yet another government subsidy – a subsidisation of people’s quality of life. The government appears ready to continue granting the contentious COLA, which is expected to rise to anywhere between €5 and €7 per worker per week. But then again, it will be businesses that will bear the brunt of the COLA increase, and not the state, save for when the government assumes the role of employer.

True, the subsidies on gas need to be removed, but once a pledge is made it needs to be honoured, unless there is a very good reason not to do so. Undoubtedly, the government has a good reason, but the backtrack needs to be acknowledged and explained.

The parliamentary debate on the transfer of land for the privatisation of the country’s gas operations should have been subsidised a little more generously… with the truth.