When the Mepa board meets today to discuss the outline development application for the extension of the Delimara power station, members may feel the need to heed two contrasting appeals made yesterday during an emergency and unexpected parliamentary debate on the issue called for by the opposition. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi asked them to feel free to take whatever decisions they considered best, while Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat asked them to take note of the sentiments of the House.

The debate followed a decision by Mr Speaker Louis Galea to uphold a request by Dr Muscat for the suspension of the agenda of the House for an immediate debate on a definite matter of urgent and national importance because Mepa would be considering the application for an extension of the power station today.

Dr Muscat said he had called on Mepa and the Prime Minister to call off the Mepa meeting until the Auditor-General reported on his investigation into the contract awarded for the power station extension. But there had been no reaction to his calls.

This matter, Dr Muscat said, was an issue of national importance because this was a $110-million project which would have a profound impact on the country's economy, the environment and the people.

The Mepa discussion would necessarily also involve the technology to be used for the power station extension, and this could therefore prejudice the inquiry of the Auditor-General, an official appointed by Parliament.

Infrastructure Minister Austin Gatt said the Mepa considerations would not involve the technology to be used in the power station extension because that had already been selected and decided. Mepa could only discuss the impact of that technology on the environment and decide accordingly.

Furthermore, he said, Mepa took its decisions independently of the government and of Parliament and there was therefore no need for an urgent debate in the House.

Dr Muscat said that the environmental impact assessment was based on the technology selected for the project, which technology was the basis for the contract being investigated by the Auditor-General.

He insisted that the Auditor-General should be allowed to complete his work and the House should debate the issue before it went before Mepa.

The Speaker, Louis Galea, suspended the sitting to consider the request.

When the sitting continued, some 65 minutes later, the Speaker said the subject raised by Dr Muscat met the definitions of what constituted a matter of definite and public importance, and he also agreed with Dr Gatt that the Mepa considerations were governed by the relevant legislation.

But this did not mean that the Members of the House could not make their views known.

The Chair also agreed with Dr Muscat that this was an urgent matter and it was therefore approving the request for an urgent debate.

After a short discussion, it was decided that the debate would take the rest of the sitting, a little more than an hour. Dr Galea called on both sides to restrict their debate to the merits of the application for the extension of the Delimara power station and not to discuss the contents of the motion presented by the Opposition on September 19, 2009.

Labour MP Evarist Bartolo said the Mepa case officer's report was based on wrong information. The area indicated in the case officer's report to be developed for the extension of the power station was not correct because it did not calculate the total area that was to be taken by both the main plant and the auxiliary plant. It only considered the area that was to be occupied by the main plant.

The total area that would be occupied for the planned extension would be that of around 8,000 square metres, and he questioned how MEPA could proceed to decide on wrong information. He also called on the government to consider what space would be left for the next phase of the Delimara power station that was projected for 2014.

On a point of order, Dr Gatt asked the Speaker to call upon Mr Bartolo to keep his contribution within the merits allowed by the Speaker's ruling.

Continuing, Mr Bartolo said that by restricting his comments to the case officer's report which Mepa would be considering today, he was keeping within Mr Speaker's ruling.

The report identified the selected equipment to be the best available technology. But the opposition disagreed: the best available technology was that which was tested, tried and proved. Yet the report was qualifying this to emission abatement equipment which was only a prototype and consequently only a "technology in development". Mr Bartolo said that to this end Mepa would also be considering a report which was incorrect in relation to the equipment being considered.

The opposition also called into question the soundness of the report presented by Lehmeyer International. Mr Bartolo said it was unprofessional and unethical that while it was presented as an independent report it was carried out by a company that was a partner of the Danish supplier on a number of other projects. He said that the Lehmeyer report did not represent an independent assessment. It misled the Mepa's tender adjudicators.

Referring to the disposal of fly ash, sludge and other toxic material produced by the power station, Mr Bartolo said it had been estimated that this process alone would cost €12 million a year, and he was therefore calling on Enemalta to explain how it had suddenly brought down its projected cost to €2.5 million.

Yet the report before Mepa did not explain why the new power station equipment would not operate on diesel, instead of the more harmful heavy fuel oil.

Indeed, Mr Bartolo said, it was shameful that the power station extension was selected before the environment impact assessment was concluded. What would happen once the new equipment started causing more environmental harm than expected? By then it would be too late.

Infrastructure Minister Austin Gatt said that opposition attempts to link BWSC with Lehmeyer, which had conducted the independent technical evaluation of the bids, did not hold water, because the bidder that was actually found to have the best technology was Bateman.

BWSC had only won the contract because its bid was far cheaper.

Dr Gatt said that the opposition's tactics on the power station extension were aimed at instilling doubts on a process which was public and transparent.

Lehmeyer had assessed the three technologies proposed in the bids and found that they all met EU and local environmental standards. Indeed, it was found that the BWSC equipment was not as good as that proposed by Bateman. Bateman had only lost the contract because its bid was more expensive, even when considering the costs of the waste disposal.

As for the environment impact assessment, Dr Gatt asked whether the opposition expected such EIAs to be made on the basis of all bids. This had never been done. The EIA was made on the basis of the selected technology because the right to choose rested on the contracting person.

The minister said the opposition should not try to politically influence Mepa's decision-making role. But the opposition had not forgotten its practices of old.

Indeed, the opposition was also sticking to its tradition of always opposing power-station growth.

Dr Gatt said Marsa power station had to close by 2012 or Malta would face hefty fines. By that time, under government plans, Malta would have in place the power station extension and the connector to the European grid.

But did the opposition want to delay all this so that Malta would face serious problems, just months before the general election?

Concluding, Dr Gatt said there was no reason why (today) Mepa should not calmly consider and then take its decision on the power station extension.

Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco insisted that Parliament should not interfere in the operation of an authority composed of representatives of various independent experts as well as two MPs.

The very purpose behind the setting up of Mepa was to distance this sort of decision-making from politicians.

What Mepa would consider (today) was not a full development permit, but an outline development permit. Mepa would discuss whether or not to approve the concept of the extension of the Delimara power station.

Even if the outline development permit was granted, that would not be enough for construction works to start.

Dr de Marco said the operation of the power station equipment would not be determined by this outline development permit but by an environment permit, an IPPC, which would need to be issued with the full development permit.

If the outline permit was issued tomorrow but then the equipment for the power station was changed, the EIA would have to be changed before the full development permit was considered.

Dr de Marco said it would be a very serious mistake for the House to interfere in Mepa's consideration of development permits. The executive had delegated the decision-making powers for the granting of development permits to Mepa.

The independence of Mepa should be respected and it should be allowed to decide, on its own, whether to consider or suspend its consideration of the outline permit or whether to accept or turn down the application.

Dr Gonzi said this was a clear opposition attempt to influence Mepa. That was why the debate was being held today.

The government was respecting Mepa's independence and calling on the board members to decide in the country's best interests.

Dr Gonzi said he found it strange how the opposition was continuing to make this sort of argument when the government had repeatedly declared that the BWSC contract had been awarded because it was the cheapest and would mean the lowest energy bills.

The opposition criticised the government over high power bills, yet it then wanted Enemalta to choose technology for the power station extension which would mean much higher bills for the people and businesses.

Yet again, the opposition was not taking decisions in the best interests of the country, Dr Gonzi said.

Winding up the discussion, Dr Muscat said the opposition felt no sense of guilt about defending the nostrils of the whole Maltese population.

It had been well worth waiting for Mr Speaker to rule that nobody could muzzle Parliament because it was the highest institution of the country.

The Prime Minister as the minister responsible for Mepa, and the authority itself, could decide what they wanted, but the opposition would say what it felt. Dr Gonzi had wanted to make people understand that he did not intervene with Mepa, but the authority's minutes themselves documented instances when the Office of the Prime Minister had intervened to influence Mepa decisions even on the issue of one storey, let alone more major issues.

What was all this haste about Mepa deciding about an application that had been pending since 2005? The application was being pushed through hastily when the first reading of the Bill on the Mepa reform showed the government wanted to do away with the outline development permit system.

Dr Muscat said Parliament had a moral duty to make its voice heard. Malta stood to suffer environmentally, financially and socially.

The opposition was not trying to get Mepa to decide one way or another, just to wait for the Auditor General to conclude his investigation. Its point was the timing of Mepa's decision.

It was very telling that Minister Gatt had immediately raised his hand on a point of order as soon as Joe Mizzi, BWSC's representative, had been mentioned.

The government was in a position to change certain things when Mepa would be making important decisions on the whole concept. It had first been said that the country should turn to gas for energy, then all had been changed and the government had gone against its own Cabinet policy.

The Prime Minister had said that it could be that Malta would suffer environmentally with the BWSC technology, but not financially. Dr Muscat said the truth was that Malta would be suffering on both counts, because the government's calculations were fallacious.

The opposition was appealing to Mepa to take note of the House's sentiments in its considerations. Dr Gonzi himself knew that if the House had taken a vote, the government would have lost because even three of its own backbenchers - Jesmond Mugliett, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Franco Debono - had spoken against the government's actions.

Dr Muscat said the opposition was doing its duty by standing up to corruption. He thanked Mr Speaker for having taken the best decision to rule in favour of the motion, and said that it was now up to the people to make up their minds.