The BWSC power station saga endures not because the Labour Party is making a political crusade out of it, but rather because the Government has made such a mess out of it that new stories continue to emerge from time to time; stories that reflect very badly on the way the contract was awarded from day one.

But the most damaging fact about the whole matter is why the Gonzi cabinet had to change its environmental policy from one depending on gas to one for heavy fuel oil right on the eve of the adjudicating process of the tender. Had cabinet not shifted policy at that delicate stage, there would have been no way how BWSC could have possibly qualified to be considered in the first place, let alone be awarded the contract. This is what I consider to be at the centre of the whole controversy. People, sitting in high places and whose roles have been fundamental in ensuring that the contract goes the BWSC way, found themselves also providing consultancies that carry with them strong perceptions of conflicts of interest. The cabinet’s decision to shift the goalposts in favour of a power station operating on heavy fuel oil is, to me and to many

others, the most baffling fact.

The perception that this radical change took place to accommodate BWSC is indeed very strong. And the fact that the government is responsible for this policy shift has made that perception doubly strong. It came like a bolt from the blue as previously the government appointed Climate Change Committee in its first draft report had included an estimate of the investment required for the country to go for natural gas within six years. Indeed it had made a specific proposal in favour of the use of natural gas, as highlighted in the national plan for the generation of electricity which had to take the country to the year 2015. This plan never mentioned heavy fuel oil as a viable alternative.

It is to me unacceptable that the same Committee that was moving towards the implementation of a national gas policy suddenly sets the tone for the use of a plant operated by – inter-alia – heavy fuel oil! And when does it make this incredible U-turn? The same year the contract was awarded to BWSC. How very convenient.

This radical shift in policy has also irked the European Commission which reacted with the commencement of an infringement procedure against Malta challenging it on the legality of the award. In its letter, the Commission states that it believes that the changes in the technical specifications introduced by the awarding authority with regard, in particular, to the emission values for diesel powered plants at a late stage of the tender procedure, discriminated in favour of the bidders that presented an offer for a diesel powered plant, and disadvantaged the bidders that had presented an offer for a gas powered plants.

The Commission made it clear that by having introduced those changes, which did not seem to be necessary in order to comply with the applicable environmental legislation, the awarding authority infringed Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC.

It is now clear that the matter is no longer just strictly territorial – where the Government normally tries to ride roughshod over the opposition’s claims of corruption and mismanagement, aided by some sections of the government friendly print media – but has turned into one for European consumption where transparency and accountability cannot and will not be sabotaged. The government might be trying to sound bullish about this new twist of events. But then why did it keep the Commission’s infringement procedure away from the public eye?

DR GAVIN GULIA LL.D., M.P.

Opposition’s main spokesman on the economy and the self-employed