Former Finance Minister Tonio Fenech, who used to be respons-ible for Enemalta, said yesterday the fact that the energy generator was a corporation did not allow the government to do as it pleased.

It realised it had to get the employees out of the way, as they were presenting it with a major problem: their wage bill was too expensive for the Chinese investors, who preferred to bring cheaper workers over.

The General Workers’ Union was conspicuous by its silence, Mr Fenech said.

Enemalta had grown in a world which had seen huge challenges, and while it was easy to comment on its debt one should not forget the reason it was in this position.

Past governments had realised that the energy sector was crucial and a power station was among the first things to be built. Despite the cost, utility bills were not increased. If that had been the case Malta would not have seen the economic development it had experienced.

Back in mid-2012 the PN government had called the Opposition to give it a clear picture of Enemalta’s financial position, explaining that €350 million would be going to a new entity which would rent back certain assets to the corporation for the next 25 years, easing the burden on Enemalta. He said both sides had agreed on this measure.

Furthermore, a report showed Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi had not inherited a debt of €800 million, as €350 million had gone to a separate entity.

The government was boasting of agreements which would impinge on the country for many years to come. Yet the Opposition was expected to debate these agreements without having all the necessary information and basing everything on a four-page ministerial statement. Was this the way to inform the country?

The government, said Mr Fenech, supposedly had a two-year plan for the energy sector, resulting in cheaper tariffs and a fixed price for 10 years.

Despite this, in the past year alone, the government had changed its stance on heavy fuel oil, which it once described as a cancer machine and now regarded it as respecting all EU standards.

Before the election the Prime Minister had promised Enemalta would not be privatised. Not only was it being privatised, but it would now become part of history. Dr Muscat had promised workers that their working conditions would not be touched, but this was clearly not the case.

Problems with the Labour plan had first emerged when the minister realised there was no need for a 200-megawatt plant, when Malta had practically all the capacity it needed until 2020. By then the plan was to be producing 110 megawatts of clean energy.

It was no wonder that the government had not published the contract with Electrogas, as it did not have a precise cost of the project for Enemalta.

When the corporation was expected to be saving €52 million a year, this year the government had lent Enemalta €110 million. Debts were expected to reach €180 million by the end of the year.

The Enemalta Bill, he said, was the result of financial despair, as the government had thought it would have the money to pay off the corporation’s debts by now. The solution for the government was to chase China and sell what it could, exacerbating the financial problem in the process.

The minister claimed to be modernising Enemalta, but in truth he was dissolving it.

He encouraged the government to be truly transparent and table all agreements entered into.

Ryan Callus (PN) promised that a new PN government would purchase the cheapest energy irrespective of agreements signed by the present government. He said that it would be an act of madness if the government purchased energy from Electrogas Ltd for €9c6 per unit if it could purchase cheaper energy elsewhere.

Mario Galea (PN) questioned whether the ‘transfer of business’ agreement used throughout Europe would apply in this case. The management style, work practices and conditions of the Chinese were very different to European work practices, but would the investors adapt or would they expect Maltese workers to adapt? Would the unions be recognised by the new company?

Nationalist MPs Charlò Bonnici, Beppe Fenech Adami, Toni Bezzina, Antoine Borg and Ċensu Galea also contributed to the debate.