What is your assessment of the local political situation one year after the last general election?

We have a government which despite the game of musical chairs that has just ended, is tired, lacks ideas and mistakes hollow rhetoric for vision. There are too many placemen and placewomen around, but hardly any doers. The consequences of the neglect and worse that have characterised PN administrations cannot be fudged any more.

Yet politically the PN succeeded because it made many beautiful promises about the future, which people wanted to hear. The PN knew and knows, it could not honour those promises. No wonder that the political situation is increasingly being clouded by the economic mess we're in.

The warnings that Labour made in past years have unfortunately been proved spot on. The government should gear up to present an action plan that would urgently seek to tackle the current stagnation. But it is doing nothing of the sort.

Now that the issue of Malta's EU membership is altogether out of the way, what are the priority problems which in your opinion are on top of the national agenda?

Malta needs to generate good economic growth if it is to provide jobs for our working people, especially the young. That must be done by attracting new investment in productive units, by making government more efficient and less costly, by ensuring that the social welfare system is not chipped away, and by doing our best not to increase the tax burden, and whenever possible, to decrease it.

All the political parties seem to agree in one way or another on the need to attract more investment to stimulate growth, to create jobs and to restrain public expenditure. What prevents you from working together to achieve positive results? What has prevented you from so doing in the past?

Surely, the government has under its control all the necessary levers by which to try and attract new investment. From the Opposition side, what we can do, have done and will continue doing, is support legislation and policies which promote new jobs and new investment. We criticise as is our duty, measures that would tend to undermine Malta's competitiveness or our welfare state.

When in power for a short period between 1996 and 1998, Labour concentrated on attracting investment and new business to the island. We brought to Malta the French tourism group Accord, plus the German group Frosch. We brought investment from Switzerland into one of our smaller banks. Among others, we ensured that ST Microeletronics and Dowty as it was then called, launched major new expansions that created hundreds of new jobs. And at the same time, Magus, an English company in the IT business started from base zero and was employing over 130 people within two years. It is on the basis of such a record that we claim that Labour does make a difference.

How would you distinguish in concrete terms the policy of the MLP from that of PN in matters relating to: a) economic growth and the creation of more jobs and b) the social services sector.

We would give substance to the priority of getting the economy moving. There would be a hands-on approach, to tackling the problems of tourism and industry. The thrust should be to create jobs, jobs, jobs. And meanwhile, to rein in inflation which is creeping up again, to the detriment of many middle class and other families.

Tourism recovery should be set as a first priority, since if tourism is gotten to move again, it would inject new cash into the economy over the relatively short term.

In manufacturing, Labour would work hard to eliminate the stifling bureaucracy that has been allowed to spread over the years, while launching aggressive, business-like promotional campaigns addressed to prospective investors in the UK, France, Germany and the US.

Industrial firms already in Malta would be given star treatment to ensure they realise how much we appreciate their continuing presence here.

Meanwhile, Labour would also strive to cut down over a reasonable period of time – definitely not 3 years but more like twice that or more – the budget deficit, to bring it close to Maastricht criteria. This would be done by cutting expenditures, rather than by increasing taxes, as has happened up to now.

On social services, the PN has been proclaiming for the past year, that they are no longer sustainable. Instead, Labour would guarantee the prevailing level of benefits, under conditions of good management and accountability. The key to the safeguarding of the welfare state is making sure that economic growth can and does happen. The Fenech Adami and Gonzi administrations have simply acted to fudge the issues, creating a welter of contradictions. So on the one hand they tell us we need to work up to 65 years of age or more, otherwise pensions will no longer be viable, while with the same breath they launch by the dozen, early retirement schemes for workers.

Ever since '87 there has not been a single year without a deficit. Since that time the national debt has snowballed from 85 million to over 1,300,000 million and is still rising. As a result debt servicing has become an additional millstone round the neck of the exchequer at more than 70 million pounds per year. The situation being what it is, do you see light at the end of the tunnel?

Only on the basis of a serious long term plan to regenerate the economy and to cut government costs. For such a plan to be effective, it must be premised on the need for hard work to fight the current economic and social crisis. The problem is that the government does not even want to accept that we are facing such a crisis. If so, how can it marshall enough energy and good will to get effective action? All Prime Minister Gonzi and his ministers seem to be interested in, is trying to get people to feel good by telling them how good it is going to be.

Up to the last general election the MLP stood for partnership with the EU and against membership. Your adversaries' watch word was that you could not be trusted... the electorate opted for membership and the MLP stood by its undertaking to abide by the decision of the sovereign electorate. Although you have been singleminded in upholding that undertaking, your adversaries go on insisting that you aren't to be trusted. You can't win can you?

You win if you convince the majority of the people over a given time frame, about the correctness of your case. However, in Labour's case, the playing field is not level and the other side controls human, material and media resources that far exceed ours. So they feel free to indulge in inconsistencies, knowing these will be ignored by their sympathizers who control the media of social communication.

But increasingly the question of trust is re-emerging in this manner: How can people trust the PN if they spent years hyping up their ideas for the future and are now delivering the contrary of what they promised?

Some people argue that since Labour opposed membership of the EU, they can hardly operate effectively in the EU's institutions, like the European Parliament.

To the contrary. Labour has been consistent in its stand for Malta. Democratically, we accepted the decision taken by the people at the last election, and will genuinely endeavour to make the best of the new reality. We will work to ensure that the advantages of EU membership are really secured and that the disadvantages will be contained as much as possible. Much of what we said has already been justified by events. We will therefore be much more credible than any other political force when we take part in the EU's institutions, because when we conclude that arrangements are satisfactory, people will accept that this is so, and when we demur, they will understand that we are doing so in the best appreciation of their interests.

Would it have not been more politically expedient for Labour to have accepted the result of the referendum, for then it could have won the elections?

The referendum was less of a level playing field than the elections were, and we had said right from the start that the real test would be set in the elections. The idea that between the referendum and the elections, Labour could have switched to backing EU membership and won the election, is a chimera. It would actually have brought a bigger reverse. Many Labour voters who felt strongly for partnership with the EU instead of membership, realised that the referendum was organised on a basis that was fundamentally unfair to the cause they deeply believed in. They would have been turned off by the party at election time, had it switched its position.

As from now Malta forms part of the EU and Maltese politicians will be playing simultaneously on two playing fields. How do you see the new scenario and do you think that the Maltese electorate will be equally interested in the state of play in the two playing fields?

Or will it take sometime to adjust to the new situation?

My guess is that in Malta, it will not be so different from what happens in other European countries. People will expect that at the national level, politics will deal directly with their aspirations and problems.The European level will appear to be more remote and less relevant. We need to make more and more people aware of how the two levels of action will affect their future and how they can take steps to ensure that on the two levels, their interests are being safeguarded. Labour will work hard to convince more and more people that it has the best policies and the best people to make this happen.

Do you see any problem in mobilising the core MLP vote for the European parliament elections?

There are a number of Labour voters who feel that since they were against Malta joining the EU, they should stay away from participating in the European Parliament elections. We are doing our best to convince them that theirs is not a reasonable way forward. Malta has now joined the EU and we must strive within the existing democratic institutions, to promote the interests of Malta and the Maltese.

The point of course is to insist that for the future, all of us must be committed to the idea that Malta and the Maltese have to assume their rightful place among the community of nations, while creating a vigorous and modern society which is economically successful, and which guarantees that people are not left to the mercies of the law of the jungle, when they grow old or when they somehow face the downside of life. Work, social protection and personal dignity are watchwords that Labour has promoted during these past months as our leading guidelines for the future.