Unlike the Prime Minister (November 29) I am not at all convinced about the government’s transparency in the power station extension contract. Nor does the EC finding, into one of the many suspicious aspects of the deal, convince me that all is right and proper.

The Prime Minister has, of course, reason to be satisfied about that one particular finding. I wonder what he would have done if it had been different. But why is he so reluctant to allow reticent witnesses to be grilled at the Public Accounts Committee hearings? Why did he say one thing to Lou Bondì about allowing those witnesses to appear, having actually already instructed the government’s PAC members to do otherwise? Is that transparency?

Perhaps the PAC can find out how much commission the BWSC’s representative here is getting – and who it is being shared with. Because I do not for a single minute believe the commission is going to one person. Others who helped must be sharing the spoils.

There are too many lingering doubts, which have not at all been explained away, about this subject. Such as the employment of two particular people who had intimate connections with the contract by the contractor that benefited from that contract. Such as the Cabinet deciding to go for gas technology but the plant extension now going to use the highly polluting heavy fuel oil, without the Cabinet having been informed of the switch. Such as why were all the bidders not informed about the contract award in time for them to appeal if they had a case.

Let me put it this way: If I were a juror and the government were the accused I would, on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence produced, vote guilty, guilty, guilty...