Given Fr Peter Serracino Inglott's categoric statement that he has declared publicly that he is not a member of the PN electoral campaign strategy team (The Sunday Times, November 18) his views on foreign policy consensus, although valid, tend to lose value in terms of the political weight I had assumed that they had.

Although I still cannot fathom what he had in mind when implying that in case of a change of government, consensus in foreign affairs should not be considered a foregone conclusion "as at present" given our "emphatic insistence that Malta should not join the PFP and similar bodies, as well as other apparent relics of policies inherited from bygone days".

Will I be asking too much were I to ask him to be a bit more specific about what relics of policies he had in mind? Ever since a Labour government's withdrawal from PFP, this affiliation has never publicly featured again on this Government's agenda, although I will not exclude that pressures could be brought to bear on a would-be PN government to rejoin if re-elected?

Under these circumstances I must insist more than ever that a pledge by the PN to retain foreign policy consensus if the MLP is elected should be forthcoming as of now.

Meanwhile, would I be asking too much were I to ask Fr Peter to give a detailed account of his public and printed denials of his involvement in the PN party machine? I say so primarily because, although he chose to single out Kullhadd, for whom I hold no brief, he has never reacted to any of a number of Malta Today articles (running from May 9, 2004 to barely three weeks ago) which claimed, among other things, that he has been recalled by Lawrence Gonzi as a political advisor to help the PN regain lost electoral ground.

Would Fr Peter be kind enough to put the record straight once and for all?