Parliament has started debating a bill to transform Enemalta Corporation into Enemalta plc. The corporation’s assets, obligations and liabilities will be transferred to the new company.

Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi said this bill was ‘a breakthrough’ for the governance of Enemalta and part of the transformation of Enemalta from an entity burdened with almost €900m in debt to a company which eventually would be a contributor to the economy.

Dr Mizzi spoke of the state of Enemalta when the present government took over, saying the oil procurement scandal was unprecedented, as was the smart meters scandal. The former government had had no solution to solve the corporation’s ills other than to raise tariffs. The corporation was woefully inefficient, unable to even issue bills on time, and projects such as the interconnector and the privatisation of the petroleum division were behind schedule.

He explained that the workers would be grouped in a new government-owned company, Engineering Resources Ltd while retaining their jobs, conditions and seniority in terms of the current collective agreement. They would be assigned work by Enemalta as needed. Jobs would be retained and no one would be required to work abroad against his will.

George Pullicino, opposition spokesman on energy, said this bill was aimed at facilitating the partial privatisation of Enemalta. He regretted that the government had not presented the documents needed for a proper debate, including the contract with Shanghai Electric, which would be buying a big stake in Enemalta, and the contract with Electrogas for the building and operation of the new power station.

The government had said months ago that it would publish the Electrogas contract, but it hadn't. What was it hiding? Where was transparency? In contrast, when the former government privatised Enemalta's Gas Division, the relevant contract, with Gasco, was published.

Mr Pullicino said the government was selling part of Enemalta, including the BWSC plant, which would be converted to gas. Egergy would also be generated from the new gas power station built by Electrogas. The PN agreed with using gas for power generation, but it disagreed that most generating capacity would be in private hands.

It was however a case of 'shame on you' that before the election, the PL said the BWSC plant was a cancer factory, but in the EU operational programme it was described as a measure for cleaner air. The plant was so efficient, it was saving Enemalta €1m a week, enabling it to reduce bills. It was also good enough for the Chinese to opt to buy it.

Mr Pullicino said the workers were being guaranteed their jobs, but not their current take home pay. In a meeting in September last year, workers in the Generation Section were told they could opt to work for Shanghai Electric or Electrogas on fixed contracts or stay with Enemalta on basic pay.

Interjecting, Dr Mizzi said fixed contracts were never mentioned. Those who wished to work with Shanghai Electric or Electrogas would be seconded but  would retain their indefinite employment.

Mr Pullicino said he knew exactly what was said, but maybe somebody was now changing the version.

Dr Mizzi said that was not the case. Mr Pullicino stood by his comment.

Ultimately, Mr Pullicino said, time would tell if workers would retain their take home pay. It was significant, he said, that the GWU was 'mute' in all this.

How would the workers be selected for posting from Engineering Services to Enemalta, Shanghai Electric, the PV joint venture, or Petromal, the new petroleum company taking over the Petroleum Division?

Was this a case of take it or leave it? Would shift patterns be changed, such that workers could lose allowances? Such allowances could potentially reach €10,000 annually.

With the collective agreement having expired in 2011, would the workers' collectively have one new agreement, or separate agreements according to where they were deployed?

Mr Pullicino also hit out at the way the government was binding itself to buy power from Electrogas at a fixed price, even when it may be able to buy cheaper electricity through the interconnector.  This did not make sense for the country and consumers. The private sector, he warned, should heed exactly what the PN was saying.

The debate continues tomorrow morning.

Before the adjournment, Opposition whip David Agius said that should the House meet on Thursdays, Opposition business had to be debated.

Carmelo Abela, Labour whip said the government set the agenda. A ruling was requested.

The Speaker noted that according to Standing Orders and previous rulings, should the House meet on Thursdays, business would alternate between the government and the opposition.

He also noted that there had been various instances during this legislature when opposition motions were debated on ordinary days of business.

However, in the absence of any agreement or procedural motion, should the House be adjourned for tomorrow for government business, the next sitting on a Thursday would have to be on opposition business.

 

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.