The Investment, Industry and Information Technology Ministry said yesterday that Labour Party spokesman on foreign affairs and IT Leo Brincat had told computer suppliers that Labour in government would change the conditions of a tender that has been issued.

This was a most serious assertion, in which Mr Brincat was saying that, if elected, the Labour Party would defy the law and change all that was being done by this government, the ministry said.

Mr Brincat was saying that, in government, he would withdraw the new computers in government schools and re-introduce, instead of them, computers which even today were very old.

He would also stop the distribution of computers to disabled people, families that needed them and non-government organisations that would benefit from the innovative scheme being introduced.

The Labour Party, the ministry said, was prejudicing an open process of public purchasing made according to law, and confirming its hostility to all forms of technological improvements. As always, the Labour Party considered every technological investment as a waste and instead of investing in what was new, it was promising that in government it would retain the old.

The government was determined to implement the reform because with the money it would be spending it could bring in better systems if it did not purchase them piecemeal, a leasing system guaranteed repairs and better quality than conventional purchases, and because there should always be the latest technology in schools and departments.

Minister Austin Gatt expressed disappointment at this “disquieting development” in Labour’s policy and said that this latest statement by the Labour Party illustrated the difference between the two parties in the sector.

Replying to the ministry, Mr Brincat said Dr Gatt had made a statement that was both misleading and meant to incite. It was not true that the Labour Party was against investing in computers, but only against the conditions of the tender, which was vitiated and raised suspicions that it could be intended to help close friends.

In his statement, he added, he had said only that although in the past a Labour government had honoured certain decisions, such as on privatisations, in order to avoid scaring away foreign investment, this time it was giving a clear warning, before the closing date, that it would be prepared to review the tender, which smelled strongly of a pre-electoral ploy.

Two particular conditions in the tender confirmed this, both of them indicating that instead of being based on value for money, the tender aimed to promote the Nationalist Party’s interests, said Mr Brincat.

Under these conditions, the successful tenderer would have to run advertising favourable to the Nationalist government on the eve of a general election when the tenderer’s interest was only to lease the computers to the government and be paid for the computers, software and technical support that was necessary.