An opposition motion calling on the government to reconsider how it had calculated the power surcharge was defeated with 23 votes in favour and 33 votes against.

The motion was presented by Labour MPs Joe Mizzi and Marie-Louise Coleiro and debated in Parliament on Monday.

Mr Mizzi, the opposition’s spokesperson on energy, said it was true that international energy prices had gone up, but the situation here was made much worse by the government’s inefficiency and wrong decisions.

He said that in 1994, the Nationalist government had promised a 15-year plan on electrical energy, but until today, 12 years later, “we are still waiting for this plan”.

However, the Nationalist government’s biggest blunder had been to stop the hedging agreement that a Labour government had entered into between 1996 and 1998, said Mr Mizzi.

Now, he added, a member of the Fuel Procurement Advisory Committee has proven as correct the opposition’s constant argument in favour of hedging.

Another blunder, he said, was the inaction of the Malta Resources Authority, the regulator of the energy sector, which should have studied the impact of the surcharge before it was put into place rather than being asked to do so by Enemalta itself afterwards.

Industry, Investments and Information Technology Minister Austin Gatt said that Enemalta had been advised by the Fuel Procurement Advisory Committee against long-term hedging of oil prices in view of current prices and market volatility.

However, the committee, he added, is in favour of short-term forward buying to maintain price stability. Enemalta has adopted this policy, and the minister said he agreed with it.

Dr Gatt said the surcharge was calculated only on the basis of the oil purchases bill, which doubled to Lm80 million in the past two years.

With regard to electricity bills, he claimed these were equal to, or even marginally lower than, the bills issued under a Labour administration.

Yet Enemalta is spending more than four times as much for the same amount of fuel oil for the power stations, he said.

He challenged Labour leader Alfred Sant to predict a day when government could have made a hedging agreement which would have led to a reduction of the surcharge in January and February.

Concluding the debate, Ms Coleiro, the opposition’s main spokesperson on social affairs, said the government should look at itself and see where it has squandered its money for the past 20 years.

Everybody knows there is a crisis and she said this was the government’s fault. The government should therefore not now ask the opposition for a solution to this crisis.

If the government was serious it should have set up a special committee to address the fuel crisis objectively, rather than slap on the surcharge.

There are families who are suffering to such an extent that they cannot even buy their daily necessities as a result of the surcharge, she said.