The parties’ interest in the energy sector confirms pollsters’ findings that utility bills are the electorate’s top concern.

Labour’s manifesto fails to mention the plan to build a new power station

Although vulnerable families get a substantial rebate while householders, manufacturers, hoteliers and industrialists who invest in photovoltaic panels are refunded part of the outlay, it is clearly obvious that, despite a higher standard of living – hence the growing number of Maltese who go on a cruise or more than one holiday a year – the perception is that users are paying more than they can afford.

In the last few years, the price of crude has increased exponentially and fluctuates between $80 and $150 a barrel.

A far cry from the $12 a barrel that had convinced Alfred Sant and his short-lived Labour government, with Joseph Muscat in tow, to raise water and electricity rates!

Muscat has harped ceaselessly on the issue. Labour was fast out of the blocks and, in the first week of the campaign, announced its plan to build a gas-fired power station. Labour monopolised the airwaves and, despite promising to furnish greater detail, has, true to form, failed to honour its commitment.

The Labour manifesto is high on gloss but skimpy in substance. Chapter 4, which I read several times, deals with the energy sector. Much to my surprise, it fails to mention the PL’s pledge to build a gas-fired power station.

The chapter contains swathes of initiatives lifted blatantly from the PN programme and published policy including the conversion to gas of the recently-built power station, shutting down the Marsa and Delimara Phase One power stations and, surprise, surprise, connecting Malta to the European grid.

In case you have forgotten Lawrence Gonzi’s government has reached agreement with Italy and earmarked a tranche of EU funds to meet part of the cost.

Labour has plagiarised several new initiatives and pledged to continue ongoing Nationalist measures from the PN programme, which was published earlier and with minor tweaks pasted to Labour’s manifesto.

Surprisingly, the manifesto fails to mention the plan to build a new power station. This fact alone presupposes a range of possible options such as: printers’ mistake, computer error, second thoughts, the abandonment of the project, placed on the back-burner.

Was the omission intentional? Is Labour following the lesson set by the Latin proverb verba volant, scripta manent? In the event that Muscat reaches his goal, is Labour hoping that the electorate would forget he has tied his political life to completing the project within a two-year time frame and, in default, pledged to resign?

The party’s failure to mention the project fuels doubts and scepticism among the less gullible. At the risk of Labour’s star candidate, Konrad Mizzi, chastising me or calling me rude, instead of repeating the mantra that more complete information will be made available when the time is ripe, the learned gentleman should, as a first step, enlighten and help solve the mystery of the missing power station.

While he’s at it, why not honour Labour’s undertaking to furnish more convincing information related to the project completion time frame and its do-ability?

Unless the power station deal is done and dusted with contractor X, Y, or Z, should the successful bidder’s upfront payment be applied to subsidise utility bills when we only have Muscat’s word that the private sector is interested in the project? Wouldn’t a commitment that a reduction in utility bills will be forthcoming from public funds be more credible?

In any case, the Nationalist alternative is less expensive, not as risky and faster to complete.

What is Mizzi’s opinion of Labour’s consultants’ opinion that their preferred option would have been a complete changeover to gas? Why pump the PL’s estimate of €350 million, or, more likely, €600 million that Enemalta and the PN consider a more accurate assessment in a new power station, when alternative sources of energy will come on stream in 2014?

Labour’s failure to mention the power station in its manifesto reinforces the general belief that the PL is reluctant to make information available.

Is Labour afraid of discussing the project openly and dispassionately? Labour’s omission and the party’s repeated refusal to provide the relevant information did not only deny Labour congress delegates the opportunity to hold an informed debate on the issue but, if further proof were needed, confirms Muscat’s opinion that Joe Public’s intelligence, in this instance PL delegates’ grey matter, is not as ‘cutting edge’ as that of his star candidates.

Michael Refalo is a former Nationalist Cabinet minister.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.