In defence of parliamentary scrutiny

One may say that the Opposition did not practice what it preached when in government. The agreement with BWSC was only scrutinised by parliament after a damning report by the Auditor General which found “smoke without fire”. 

Moreover the choice of heavy fuel oil for the Delimara extension was made in the absence of an approved national energy policy, and following a change in a legal notice (outside the remit of parliament) which impacted on the choice of fuel. 

Still, the bad practices of the Nationalists in government should be no excuse for the deficiencies of a government elected on a platform of transparency.

The government’s tight electoral timetable has weakened its negotiating position with the company, which literally has a grip on the government’s vital organs.

The reality is that the agreement with ElectroGas will dictate Malta’s energy policy for the next 18 years, including the share Malta will use from the interconnector and renewable energy for years to come. 

This agreement is being signed in the absence of any changes to the long due Energy Policy approved by the Nationalist government in December 2012.  We also know from the EIA that any advantages in air quality are conditional on energy demand remaining the same as today. And the seriously abused system of tenders for oil supply will now be replaced with one contract with one private company lasting 18 years.

This is enough reason to go one step further: the agreement, including all clauses included in it, should be discussed and approved by parliament before it is even signed.

Instead we are in a situation where we do not even know whether the agreement has been signed in full, or whether it is being signed in tranches. We do not even know who signed the agreement on behalf of ElectroGas.

Moreover, it is the government which has filled Malta with billboards reminding the electorate of the lower electricity bills secured by this agreement. It is only fair that we know how this will be achieved, preferably before we vote in a week’s time.

Ultimately Labour was not elected to behave worse than previous governments.

In all such contracts, the devil is in the detail. The government is saying that it would remove the LNG tanker from Marsaxlokk bay once the gas pipeline with the European mainland is completed. In this context, who will own the gas pipeline? Will it be ElectroGas, with which the Maltese government to buy its gas for 18 years?

My greatest fear is that the government’s tight electoral timetable has weakened its negotiating position with the company, which literally has a grip on the government’s vital organs. Surely any agreement involves a trade-off and probably the agreement will secure economic growth and better living standards during the next five years.

But it is parliament’s job to scrutinize the more long-term implications of the agreement.

One concrete reform in this context would be a legislative change to ensure that any agreement signed by the Maltese government – over and above a certain sum of money – should need parliamentary approval.

A similar change was enacted by the Sant government on the sale of public land, a change introduced following an investigation of the Hilton land-grab by the Ombudsman, prompted by a five-day hunger strike by a number of activists. 

It was thanks to this landmark change that the Smart City agreement had to be submitted to parliamentary approval in March 2007.

The government has also objected to a request by the Opposition, to have the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee discuss the contract between Individual Investor Programme concessionaires Henley & Partners and the government. The government cites a decision by the courts not to publish commercially sensitive information which may impact on a pending court case.

But the fundamental issue at stake is the sovereignty of parliament to scrutinise the agreement.

Ultimately Labour was not elected to behave worse than previous governments. Moreover the deals between government and big business are particularly sensitive in view of a justified suspicion of back-room deals.