The new Labour Party deputy leader for parliamentary affairs, Charles Mangion, says he is convinced the party can win the next election with Alfred Sant at the helm. In a wide-ranging interview with Jesmond Bonello, Dr Mangion speaks out against the opposition putting spokes in the wheels to disrupt parliamentary work. He insists the MLP should have declared its intention to retain VAT soon after the 1998 election. Dr Mangion also speaks against the boycott of programmes produced by Where's Everybody and argues against the idea of the party investing to have its own daily newspaper in English.

What are your priorities as deputy leader for parliamentary affairs and are there any immediate issues you want to take up?

We have started a process to improve the organisational aspect of our parliamentary work. The deputy speaker is from the opposition benches and we are close to reach a pairing agreement with the government.

I have already started talks with (Deputy Prime Minister) Lawrence Gonzi to ensure there will be a detailed programme of parliamentary work so that MPs are fully aware of their commitments.

Within the party, the experience of meeting party delegates in the run up to the election for deputy leader has been an eye opener.

We have to strengthen communication with the party delegates and with our grass roots. I am working on a programme to start meeting delegates to get their feedback from bottom up and to understand better the needs and mood of our society. I have realised that the delegates are in possession of first-hand popular information that goes beyond the internal party structures. It is crucial for the MLP to remain in close contact with its delegates and activists.

Over the last legislature, the opposition's behaviour was radical and it basically opposed most things that the government proposed. Will we see a different opposition?

It depends what you mean by different. During the past legislature there were occasions when there was agreement with the government over certain laws. For instance, most social laws were enacted in agreement between the two sides of the House.

Having said that, the past legislature was characterised by the EU membership issue and, therefore, it is true that there was lack of agreement over a large number of laws because of the different programmes that the two parties were proposing regarding Malta's relations with the EU.

From the discussion I am having with our MPs, it is clear they are determined to focus more on each individual ministry on an administrative point of view. It is important for each and every MP to prepare their work well. I believe a great deal in the validity of parliamentary work and in constructive criticism with regard to the government's work.

Indeed the opposition has to serve as the watchdog of the government and to criticise government work. I also understand that the opposition needs to score goals because, after all, that is part of the game. But don't you agree that the MLP's approach in opposition between 1998 and 2003 was too radical?

The opposition has to be vigilant. But I want to be clear. I am against an opposition that puts spokes in the wheels of the parliamentary process and work. If you are referring to any hindrance to parliamentary work, I am totally against that tactic. We have to work hard and participate in every committee. We also have to keep the government on its toes and criticise the government where it is deemed necessary. Above all, the opposition has to offer alternatives in a bid to convince the public that its policies are better than those of the government.

The MLP has only managed to win one election out of the last five and when it was elected it lost power in less than two years. What's wrong with the MLP?

The MLP won the 1996 election after the Nationalist Party had been in office for two terms. It is quite a natural process for a party to stay in government for two legislatures and then there is a change of government. What happened in 1998 was the result of certain dissent within the MLP. If we take the last general election, the main focus was the issue of EU membership and it is clear that people preferred full membership rather than the special relations the MLP was proposing. I fully respect the people's choice and we shall now focus on the local domestic issues that have been completely neglected by the government.

But don't you think that a wise leadership should have pre-empted the people's mood with regard to EU membership and changed its course before it was too late? I think the writing had been on the wall for quite some time.

But don't forget that the MLP had its own policy with regard to EU membership and that its policy had been approved by all the internal party structures. Our work was to convince the people that the party's policy was the best option. To change our policy a few weeks before a general election does not make sense.

I was not implying that the MLP should have changed its position a few weeks before. All polls were showing a majority in favour of EU membership for quite a long time and such polls were public information. It seems the MLP is not finding it very difficult to accept EU membership at this stage. Was it that difficult to accept EU membership a few years back?

I want to stress we were never an anti-EU party and we always regarded the EU as a positive development. We wanted a close relationship short of full membership. The MLP had consistently maintained that the general election would decide the issue and as a political party we have no problem respecting the will of the people.

I disagree with you that EU membership was the only determining factor in the past general election. I believe it was an issue of credibility. Polls were consistently showing the MLP had a credibility problem prior to the election. Don't you agree that the MLP still has a credibility problem and that you need to tackle this issue?

I believe we are already managing to win back our credibility. The fact that we were consistent with our commitment to accept the people's verdict on EU membership has given us a lot of credibility and has confirmed our democratic credentials.

Now we want to strengthen our rapport and communication not only with the media but also with the different sectors of our society. I believe that our MPs and the leadership have to strengthen their rapport with the different players in our society. This was one of our strong points between 1992 and 1996 and we have to make sure it will be one of our priorities once again.

The MLP has just changed its two deputy leaders. Do you think the change should be more radical than that?

Our statute also provides for the confirmation - or otherwise - of the party administration. This should be an open process and people who feel they have a contribution to make should come forward and contest party posts.

But is there a need for a change?

A change is always good so long as it is justified and accepted by the delegates. I am convinced the delegates are reflecting on what should be done and whether any changes are needed. New people can give you new ideas but one has to make sure that changes are only made when there is the need for such a change.

Do you agree that the selection of the new party administration should be brought forward as suggested by a petition doing the rounds within the party?

We are discussing the issue internally and it would not be prudent to give my opinion on the subject.

Over the past decade the MLP stuck to its guns on a number of important issues only to change its stand later when it was too late in terms of electoral victories... or the lack of them. This applies to the issue of the political parties participating in local council elections, the issue of VAT and EU membership. What has led the MLP to take such a conservative approach with regard to these issues?

On the issue of local councils, ideologically the party was never against their creation but had expressed reservations over the participation of the political parties in the elections as we believe this leads to an increase of polarisation in the country. Our intention was not to turn local councils into a political arena. We changed our position because we were being put at a disadvantage since the PN was determined to take part in these elections. Even the Church had agreed that political parties should not participate actively in local councils.

But my point is that over the past 10 years the MLP had to change its policy on major issues which dominated the local political scene. My question is whether this has an impact on the party's credibility.

Fine. But if you go back in history you will find that the PN had voted against the introduction of the minimum wage and the introduction of bonuses and had conducted a huge campaign against free medical services and free Church schools. Today, the PN has accepted these policies. What I am trying to say is that every political party has to take note of the people's verdict and listen to the feedback from the public and make adjustments to its policies.

On the issue of VAT, I want to stress that when the Labour government removed VAT it was implementing the people's verdict as expressed in the 1996 election. The MLP has once again respected the democratic decision taken by the people in 1998 and that is why we are now saying that VAT is there to stay.

But it took you five years to accept VAT from 1998 to 2003...

On this point I agree with you. I think it was a mistake not to take a position from day one by saying that VAT is no longer an issue. With hindsight, we should have dealt with this issue before.

On the issue of EU membership, is Charles Mangion intrinsically in favour or against membership?

I respect the people's verdict but we have to have a better understanding of the political, social and economic implications of this decision on our country before endorsing it. We shall be fully participating in all EU structures. We have already appointed our two observers to the European parliament and we shall be upgrading our role within the European Socialist Party...

But what is your personal belief on the subject?

What do you mean by personal belief?

What I mean is that it's not just an issue of respecting the people's verdict. I want to know your personal opinion on the subject.

My opinion is let's make the best out of it.

Granted. But are you in favour or against membership as such?

I was never anti-European.

If you detach yourself from the position you occupy do you prefer partnership to membership?

It's very difficult to detach yourself from the position you occupy. What I can tell you is that I believe we could have got a better deal. But now we have to look forward and make the best of it and protect the interest of our country.

The British Conservative Party is not against its nation's EU membership but it is still very much a Eurosceptic party. Will the MLP shed the image of a Eurosceptic party?

I am not Eurosceptic but I am not prepared to accept everything that the EU dictates. European leaders like (Silvio) Berlusconi are now questioning certain decisions taken by the EU. It's not a question of being Eurosceptic but of monitoring what is taking place and ensuring that the implementation of decisions taken at EU level will not have a negative impact in Malta.

I just want to defend the interest of the Maltese in this new reality. After all, this is what other member states are doing. For instance, Britain is still resisting adopting the euro and I am sure it is doing so to protect its interest. I think the British are doing the right thing when they seek to protect their interests.

The British are the most Eurosceptic of the lot....

They have the most pro-European prime minister that Britain ever had.

Two issues which I believe contributed to the MLP's electoral defeat of last April were the boycott against Where's Everybody and the interpretation to the referendum result of March 8. What is your personal opinion?

On the boycott against Where's Everybody, I believe it was a mistake and that it should be lifted. On the referendum, the MLP had declared it would only abide by the result of the general election. The fact is that only 48 per cent of eligible voters voted in favour of EU membership. But we obviously abide by the outcome of the election.

The MLP had every right to say it would abide by the result of the election but you cannot give that interpretation to such a clear result as that obtained in the referendum. Let's be honest, it is simply not credible to say that partnership won when the majority of people voted for membership.

To say that only 48 per cent of the eligible electorate voted in favour in the referendum is statistically correct.

But politically and legally you don't determine the outcome of the referendum in terms of the eligible electorate.

Legally, only an abrogative referendum is binding.

That's not the point. I know people who did not plan to vote PN but, after listening Alfred Sant's declaration that partnership won the referendum, decided they could not trust Labour and voted for the PN. Politically, the interpretation of the referendum result shouldn't have been questioned.

But we do not have a culture of holding referendums. The parties should discuss and agree on criteria upon which a referendum should be held. We were very clear that we would accept the result of the general election and I immediately said that we would accept the result of the general election.

So, to cut a long story short, don't you have any regrets over the way the MLP handled the referendum outcome?

No.

Since Dr Sant took over the leadership he tried to change the old Socialist Party to a new Labour Party. He had some initial successes including that of changing the image of the party and winning the 1996 election but since then one can hardly conclude that he has been successful at the helm of the MLP. Do you think Dr Sant can win the next election ?

I am convinced he can do it. The last election was lost because of the issue of EU membership. Obviously, the personality and the team are important. I believe we still have to make inroads and meet the people directly. But I am sure we can do it.

Do you see the leadership issue as a closed chapter?

Yes.

Are you happy with the party's relationship with the media?

I believe we have to be present in all the media and to make sure our message is heard. I also expect the media to be fair and to differentiate between fact and opinion.

Do you agree with the proposal for the MLP to have its own English newspaper?

No. It's too expensive and it's very difficult to penetrate the market which is already dominated by the current players. We have enough media...

How should Labour MPs vote when the time comes to vote on the accession treaty and should they be given a free vote?

We are discussing these issues at parliamentary group level and therefore I prefer not to pronounce myself on the issue.

But do you have a personal opinion on the subject?

Yes. But I prefer to allow the parliamentary group to discuss the issue internally and not to pre-empt any scenario.

Finally, what are the MLP's future challenges and what is your assessment of the government's performance in the first weeks of this new legislature?

The government is finding it difficult to handle the new realities and the domestic issues facing our country. For instance, there was a detailed plan for the transfer of the new hospital to start taking place as from this year. Now, all of a sudden, the government has announced this will not start taking place until 2005.

There were also specific targets to curtail the budget deficit and the level of public debt has now gone completely haywire. Effectively, the government has not got the ability to come to grips with reality and solve the internal domestic problems of this country.

On the other hand, the MLP has to focus on these issues and project the image that it is the party which can really cure the internal domestic problems that have now become serious ones. We have to explain to the people that we are the party which can take decisions and address such problems. We have to convince the people we are the ones who deliver.