Virtually all 30 minutes of question time in yesterday evening's parliamentary sitting were taken up with a "sparring session" between the opposition and Finance Minister Tonio Fenech on the former's contention that BWSC should be fined €20 million for having failed to declare that companies sub-contracted to it had been involved in cases of corruption.

The original PQ had been asked by Labour MP Owen Bonnici, who asked what steps the government had taken to impose a fine of €20 million on BWSC for having covered up a number of details in its winning tender for the extension of the Delimara power station. He specifically mentioned companies ABB, Siemens and Bartsila.

In his one-sentence reply minister Fenech said his ministry had formally asked the Attorney General for his opinion on the matter. To Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat's question on what the minister's personal opinion was, Mr Fenech, an accountant by profession, said he was no lawyer and would leave the legal interpretation to the experts. His ministerial position empowered him to administer, whereas it was the AG who had the legal competence. His own opinion was irrelevant.

Remarking that government ministers seemed to be getting a complex of no personal opinions, forgetfulness and not being conscious of important matters, Dr Muscat asked when the AG's formal opinion had been sought. Minister Fenech said it had been sought about two months ago.

Dr Muscat said that meant the matter had been taken in hand long after the opposition had pointed it out. Was it possible that the ministry had no self-starters on such an important issue?

Mr Fenech said Enemalta Corporation's lawyers had been consulted and they felt the opposition's point was not applicable. The lawyers were not, as Dr Muscat immediately asked, the lawyers of BWSC or its local agent Joseph Mizzi, but the corporation's own internal lawyers.

Evarist Bartolo (PL) said the contract was clear about the 10 per cent fine if material facts were covered up. Why did the minister still need the AG's opinion?

Mr Fenech said the PQ had mentioned a clause or paragraph that concerned BWSC alone, not its sub-contractors as well. Mr Bartolo countered that BWSC was its own project manager and had to have sub-contractors and suppliers. All the companies mentioned in the PQ had been charged with professional misconduct and had court cases pending against them. Had they not been screened at any time by Enemalta, the Department of Contracts or the ministry?

Mr Fenech asked why the opposition was insisting on a clause that once applied could be contested. To a question from Dr Muscat if he agreed with Enemalta's lawyers, he said the fact that he had consulted them at all should mean a lot. It had been Enemalta's task to screen BWSC, who were not project managers as maintained by Mr Bartolo but contractors with sub-contractors. Mr Bartolo insisted that the BWSC website said they were project managers.

Mr Fenech said it was difficult to give an interpretation as had been requested from the AG. If a company was bidding as a contractor, it had obligations. The situation was analogous to what had happened under the Italian protocol, when Italian companies had been awarded contracts but had then hired Maltese sub-contractors to do the jobs. This had not made the Italians project managers.

Dr Muscat said that when the government had been moved to table a copy of the contract, one of the missing parts had been the list of sub-contractors. Why should BWSC have objected to this being published?

Mr Fenech said BWSC had found no objection to naming the sub-contractors, but only to the revelation of their technical links which were commercially sensitive. When Dr Muscat asked how much the government estimated that the fine to BWSC should amount to, he said he was leaving the technical matters to the AG.

Mr Bartolo said the choice of suppliers was crucial to BWSC. They should have submitted reports of due diligence to Enemalta's lawyers. Mr Fenech said a consortium was certainly not a project manager. Mr Bartolo was welcome to his own interpretation, but the government was waiting for the AG's reply.

To a remark by Dr Muscat that the opposition would have expected the government to take a firm stance and insist that Malta should get what was due to it, Mr Fenech said that if the Leader of the Opposition would ask a written parliamentary question he would ask the project team if the fine was applicable. In the meantime there should be no doubting the government's determination within the legal framework.