The Opposition put forward this motion as they were concerned about the use of heavy fuel oil rather than gas, which was better economically and ecologically, Labour Deputy Leader, Anglu Farrugia said during yesterday morning’s parliamentary debate on the tender process of the Delimara Power Station.

The government went against what it declared in 2006, that the new plant would use gas, since heavy fuel oil is more polluting and expensive, he said, speaking during the debate on the power station extension contract.

The need for energy provisions to meet changing demands was understood, he said, but the motion disagreed with how the government went ahead with awarding the tender. The process was tainted by the unethical behaviour of the Danish company BWSC and its local consultant.

The motion condemned Infrastructure Minister Austin Gatt for the many delays, that environmental laws were changed, that the new plant would need an investment of €24 million to switch to gas and it would produce some 31 tonnes of toxic waste daily.

Furthermore, he said, this prototype was an experiment on the Marsaxlokk residents. The plant will occupy much of the limited space, creating problems in coming years.

BWSC ‘cheapest by far’ and ‘uses tried and tested’ technology – Austin Gatt

The Auditor’s report made it clear BWSC was chosen as “the cheapest by far” using “tried and tested” technology, with no irregularities or corruption, Infrastructure Minister, Austin Gatt said.

The debate reminded him of when a Nationalist government suggested Delimara for a power station, with the Opposition predicting disasters which never happened.

The truth is the Auditor’s report excluded the principal allegation of corruption, due to no evidence. The Opposition, meanwhile, consoles itself by his saying there was no hard evidence.

This is not what he said, but they conveniently forgot to read the paragraph before which said they would endeavour to establish facts based solely on hard evidence at its disposal.

The Auditor said he wanted hard evidence, which he didn’t come across. There was no evidence of even irregularities. He can only put the Opposition’s zeal down to stopping the contract for political aims.

It knows full well that by 2012 Marsa power station must close, or face fines and wants to leave the government with no option but to keep working with the Marsa plant.

They said it was outdated technology, but Professor Edward Mallia said BWSC engines constituted well proven technology which has been installed in numerous places worldwide from Cyprus to Pakistan, with no complaints or obvious design defects reported.

The Opposition knows that it makes sense for the government to have flexibility between the two fuels, but it also knows that emission levels were not changed in the process, and BWSC would still have been chosen.

Leo Brincat (PL) said the environmental health cost hadn’t been calculated, as the cost of toxic waste disposal hadn’t. NGOs were concerned that no agreement for exportation of this waste existed, without excluding local dumping.

Even the Auditor questioned how the Environmental Impact Assessment, which was somewhat weak, came after the contract was signed.

Former Nationalist Minister Michael Falzon described this as an environmentally flawed decision, adding it was unthinkable for a government to invest in heavy fuel oil in this day and age.

Marlene Pullicino (PL) said the Opposition said nothing when there was the plan 2006-2015, until they realised the government was working undercover on something.

She questioned why the Enemalta chairman had not been asked to resign before the people to decide on this contract were chosen?

The Electricity Generation Plan 2006-2015 had made it clear that Malta needed a different form of energy from the one which was approved. The vote, she said, would indicate whether the politicians’ priority was the people’s health.

Mario de Marco (PN) said the government was doing its part for the environment and making the best choices to invest in better air quality and stable electricity supply.

MEPA would ensure the plant functioned within the limits of the Air Quality Framework Directive, before the permit is issued, he said.

A number of NGOs raised the fuel question but the technology chosen doesn’t close any doors, although it would need increased storage. This investment and the change in public transport show the government’s commitment.

Charles Mangion (PL) said the Auditor’s report, a laudable piece of work, made it clear that the power station contract lacks accountability and smacks of corruption.

A system guaranteeing continuous provision of electricity, which doesn’t pollute or damage people’s health or increase the financial burden, had to be chosen.

Enemalta started in a position to negotiate and dictate, but ended in a weakened position. The negotiators were not naïve, he said, but some conditions are questionable.

There were a number of points which had to be explained.

George Pullicino (PN) said a committee of experts tailored a strategy for reducing CO2, and over the past months the Opposition decided the plant went against this strategy, he said.

They hadn’t read the strategy, didn’t understand it or more probably, wanted to confuse people, he said.

It is impossible to have the infrastructure to receive and store the volume of gas which would be necessary by 2012, but with some modifications this plant can use gas in the future.

Joe Mizzi (PL) said when PN first proposed the Delimara power station the Opposition was against the site, not the investment.

Former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami said the government would focus on alternative energy in 1994, promising a report by June, today there was nothing. When elected in 1998 PN approved a Labour report, but again did nothing.

Mr Mizzi urged a number of backbenchers preoccupied by the extension to remain faithful to the people and the oath of loyalty they took.