What is holding back the consortium building the new power station and the government from giving all the pertinent information about the project?
If at first the government could claim it was unable to do so because of the consortium’s commercial interests, the argument no longer holds as there is now a superior overriding interest – that of the taxpayer who, through the State, is guaranteeing a huge loan that the consortium has taken from Bank of Valletta.
The need for the public to be fully informed is now even more compelling in view of the departure from the consortium of its lead partner, Gasol. This should have led the administration to explain the reasons for the move, in other words to be as transparent as possible in a project originally deemed so vitally important for the country. However, neither the consortium nor the government appears keen to let the people into their confidence.
Acting quite out of tune with its commitment to be accountable, the government opts for a secretive approach. Why? The more secretive it chooses to be, the more questions people will ask.
There is also a great deal of doublespeak in the statements being issued. Gasol has said it sold all its interests in the project after “after the successful completion of objectives that are compatible with its customary development-stage role”. Did the government know that Gasol had planned to withdraw from the consortium after doing what is says it had done?
The general impression is that no one did, and that this is not what led Gasol to cease being the lead partner in the consortium. The impression is that Gasol, facing financial issues, has been pushed out of the consortium.
Has the consortium withdrawn in accordance with previously known arrangements or has it been pushed out because of its financial situation? In a statement mired in doublespeak, the government said it “welcomed” the increased commitment demonstrated by Siemens, Socar and GEM to the project. Not only that, but it also welcomed what it called the “consolidation” of the consortium.
Significantly, it did not explain why Gasol is no longer the lead partner. Nor has it explained why it had to make out a State guarantee for €88 million on a bridging loan of €101 million to the consortium.
What it said was that the guarantee was temporary until the European Commission decided whether the security of supply agreement it had entered into with Electrogas was permissible. But, while raising loans for huge projects is par for the course, why was it necessary for the consortium to seek a government guarantee?
On its part, the consortium said “the rearrangement” of existing partners was being done to maintain “the long-term stability” of the company. Is it saying that with Gasol in the consortium, it had no such stability?
In the light of all this, and much more, is it any wonder that the Opposition is asking the National Audit Office to look into the matter? Why is the government persistently refusing to publish all the relevant contracts?
The Nationalist Party obviously feels the fact that Gasol was now no longer part of the project raises serious questions as to whether the public procurement process remains valid.
There are so many questions that need to be answered that it is difficult to understand how the government can expect to escape serious criticism over its distinct lack of accountability. Secrecy continues to breed speculation and suspicion.