The latest blow dealt to the public, and their justified concerns about their present and future health, comes from the revelations about how this country will deal with the BWSC waste that will be generated. How and where the toxic waste will actually be disposed of we don't even know because, quite incredibly, this government did not, as it should undoubtedly have done, sort out this basic factor before it signed on the dotted line with all our euros.

So, if Finance Minster Tonio Fenech, in his Talking Point on Thursday, is trying so very hard to make a soft landing on the side of the truth can he confirm all of the following?

First. Has Lawrence Gonzi's government really acquired a power station extension, signed on the dotted line and committed this country to "high risk" and uncertainty (high risk are the Auditor General's words not the Labour Party's) without even having first resolved where the waste will end up?

This is like installing a bathroom without any drainage in the vicinity.

The choice of heavy fuel oil, which goes against this government's own plans for energy in the sector, will result in 31 tonnes of toxic waste being produced daily.

Second. What is the true and total cost of all this waste disposal, financial and otherwise? Enemalta said last January that it already has a contract to dispose of hazardous waste. In the meeting held by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority on Thursday, it was confirmed that no such contract exists. So Enemalta and the government awarded the contract to BWSC when they do not know the total cost of the operations, so they cannot compute total cost of electricity generated by it.

Third. Have all these costs been measured and have measures been taken to mitigate against them where applicable? Have these counter measures been costed too? One of the conditions of the contract was that the awarded company was to offer best available technology. BWSC are offering a prototype for their emission abatement equipment. They are offering technology in development. They have refused to publish the documents about this equipment. When Labour leader Joseph Muscat and I met BWSC officials last November they confirmed to us that such equipment is a prototype and said they hoped they would try it and test it before they install it in Malta. BWSC's technology was given the go ahead by "independent" technical consultant Lahmeyer International, represented in Malta by the same agent of BWSC, Joseph Mizzi, and has been a business partner of BWSC to build three power stations.

Fourth. What risks are there in the transportation of this power station extension waste, whether by road or by sea to Freeport?

Fifth. If Mr Fenech is committed to the truth, will he confirm this is the cleanest possible option for Malta at the best cost and the least risk, health wise, financially and environmentally?

Let us remind the public that, despite all the spin about higher bills, we are being landed with a toxic cocktail. But even this spin is weak, as suggested during the public hearing when it was stated that heavy fuel oil is more expensive to run, thus tilting the balance towards cleaner, and cheaper, technology.

We are not talking about power stations from the past or that have been acquired in the past. We are talking about the acquisition of a power station that will be a key determinant in a clean future for us all. How can it be the cleanest when we are using heavy fuel oil? How can the process be the cleanest when Enemalta and the government have chosen companies for this contract that are or have been involved in corruption. The government should recover 10 per cent of the value of the contract as BWSC has failed to declare the professional misconduct of several of its subcontractors.

Most importantly, why was the word guaranteed crossed out in the contract this government signed?

Will Mr Fenech say yes loudly and clearly to the questions we are putting to him?

The author, a member of Parliament, is Labour spokesman on education and media