The opposition spokesman on EU affairs, George Vella, said yesterday that Malta was now exploiting all the opportunities available to it in the European Union.

Malta needed to grab every opportunity to benefit from its EU membership in order to overcome disadvantages from the EU, the Labour MP said. Both sides of the House should work together to make Malta's case in the various EU fora and Malta's officials in Brussels also needed to be careful not to miss anything.

Dr Vella said it was unfortunate that the budget debate had seen both sides attacking each other. The people needed confidence and a vision for the future. It did not do to justify the bad of today with the bad of yesterday.

True, the MLP had changed its position regarding the EU. This did not mean that what it used to say in the past was wrong, but it was respecting the people's verdict in a democracy.

Dr Vella said EU membership brought challenges and opportunities. The advantages were not automatic but had to be sought out and exploited. The race between both sides of the House should now be on how much wealth could be created.

Unfortunately Malta had lost funding opportunities under various programmes, notably Life, and not enough benefit had been achieved from Erasmus. Dr Vella said the government needed to continue fighting Malta's corner in the EU budget talks. Some had argued that countries whose economy grew beyond 75 per cent of the EU average until the budget agreement was reached should see their financial assistance gradually reduced until they became net contributors. Malta needed to underline its particular circumstances as a small island state with disadvantages stemming from its position on the periphery of Europe. The opposition was ready to help on this issue too.

Dr Vella said it was right that the government should seek to achieve the Maastricht economic criteria. But there should not be such a rush that imposed undue burdens on society. The government had made substantial promises in the Convergence Programme submitted to the EU and achieving them would be difficult. It would be wrong of the government to milk the people to meet the Maastricht criteria. When other countries went over their deficit targets, they found excuses to justify what had happened. Certainly, this was not the time for cutbacks from the health sector, in particular.

Dr Vella observed that according to the latest Eurobarometer survey the people were disappointed with the outcome of EU membership. The Prime Minister had said that accession had improved the quality of life but, clearly, the people were not feeling this improvement. Economic figures too were not showing improvement.

Among those who were very disappointed were the farmers, who had even considered going to the European Court after the government refused to enforce safeguard clauses on imports.

What was stopping the Maltese government from speaking out about the problems of the Maltese agriculture sector, especially in the context of the ongoing debate on reform of the common agriculture policy?

With regard to bird hunting, why had the Environment Ministry even been late in submitting a report to justify the retention of derogations?

Dr Vella said that everybody hoped the Maltese shipyards would become profitable. But what would happen if they did not? Closing them down would cause even more problems. The problems of Malta's shipyard did not compare with other European shipyards. Malta had a particular case and this case should be made in order to achieve new agreements with the EU if necessary.

The Labour MP expressed his regret that Malta was placing very low in many of the Lisbon Agenda scoreboards. He hoped that the new three year national plan on competitiveness would be taken seriously. Indeed, the Lisbon strategy needed to be adapted to become the Valletta strategy. It was important, though, that economic growth and greater competitiveness were not achieved at the expense of social welfare.

Dr Vella touched briefly on the issue of Maltese language interpreters in the EU and wondered if they were really needed. It was true that this was an opportunity for jobs for the Maltese, but what satisfaction or need was there to translate into English for speakers who may know that language better than the interpreters themselves. Couldn't the considerable expense which went for interpretation be diverted to other uses for Malta's benefit?

Dr Vella asked what had become of Dar Malta in Brussels. What were the plans for the building, when would it start being used, how much would the project cost, how much had been spent to remove asbestos?

The Labour MP said Malta needed to be active in the debate on the future of Europe. The UK presidency had given hope that there would be intensive debate during its term but not much had been achieved and the President of the Commission had vanished during the summer at such a critical time.

This argument had to include the high rate of unemployment in Europe, the way European productivity was lower than that of the US and how there were also fewer science graduates in Europe than in America.

One could not separate the political, economic and social aspects of the future of Europe and unless the EU knew where it was going, it could not make port.

Unfortunately this debate on the future of the EU was also lacking in Europe. Being critical of current decisions in the EU did not mean one was against the EU or Malta's membership of it. The European constitutional treaty was part of this issue. By April, Malta was supposed to present a report on the national debate on the constitution, but there was no debate at all.

Neither was there any debate here on the impact of various directives being cooked up in the EU, such as the services directive, the working time directive, the port works directive or the new directive on chemicals (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals - REACH).

The government should explain its position on these issues and stimulate debate. For example, would Malta still be able to opt out of the working time directive? With regard to the services directive, it appeared that agreement in the EU on the issue of the country of origin would be reached. What would the impact on Malta be? REACH could have an impact on local industry and prices but the government was not saying anything.

Labour knew what it wanted and was guided by only one principle - safeguarding the peoples' rights and preventing measures which would erode social values and raise prices unnecessarily.

Turning to Euro-Mediterranean issues, Dr Vella regretted that not enough progress was being made on the liberalisation of the Euro-Mediterranean markets and ways to improve the economies of the North African countries as a way to stimulate growth.

He was concerned, Dr Vella said, that Spain had suddenly come out against the Parliamentary Assembly for the Mediterranean, seeing it as duplication of the Euro-Mediterranean parliamentary assembly, something with which he did not agree.

On the neighbourhood policy of the EU, Dr Vella said the EU had concentrated more on the eastern enlargement, not giving enough importance to the bloc's neighbours in North Africa.

Dr Vella said that illegal immigration was not an EU issue but the EU was involved in it. Malta needed help on the issue, it could only offer limited help to the migrants. It was unfortunate that European Commission officials had not come scrambling to Malta to look into the situation as they did when they went to Spain. The government would have the opposition's complete support in calling for more effective help over this matter.

The oppostion's vision for Europe, Dr Vella said, was to aim for a Europe of excellence, which offered its people prosperity, equality and solidarity, a Europe based on jobs and progress for all, a Europe of security and justice.

Leo Brincat, opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, underlined the opposition's cooperation with the government on many issues of foreign affairs.

Among them was the impact on Malta of the decisions taken by Libya and Tunisia to extend their fisheries zones. MLP officials had met Libyan and Tunisian officials on this matter.

The MLP had also had talks with Libyan officials on illegal immigration and the supply of oil at preferential prices.

However, one had to question the current state of relations with Libya, which the minister had described as being "static". Why had a Maltese ministerial delegation not been received by Colonel Gaddafi, with the Prime Minister having been received only at the eleventh hour while EU Commission President Barroso was already in Malta on a pre-scheduled visit?

Why had no date been fixed for a meeting of the mixed commission between the two countries? Had any headway been made over issues of illegal immigration? Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg recently boasted that he had discussed the problem of immigration with a friend of a friend of Colonel Gaddafi. But didn't Malta and Libya both have their own ambassadors? The opposition, Mr Brincat said, welcomed a prospective visit by Gaddafi in Malta but up to now there was no clear indication as to when this was to take place.

Was it true that some ambassadors had told Malta that illegal migration was Malta's problem and it should solve it itself?

Mr Brincat said the Labour opposition had also given its share towards the necessary changes in the Maltese embassy in Peking following the visas issue. Despite what the government said, there had clearly been laxity in the way visas had been issued by the embassy. The government had been slow to react, and it was now being slow to restore normality, including the appointment of a new ambassador.

The opposition had also done its share towards the restructuring of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Minister Frendo had taken due note of its suggestions.

Labour's foreign policy was based on safeguarding the interests of Malta and the Maltese anywhere in the world.

Both within the EU and through bilateral relations, Malta should cooperate with its neighbours to promote security and cooperation in the region and beyond, notably the US, the Gulf and China.

Of particular interest would be investment and IT development with China, India and Brazil, among other emergent nations.

Malta could also make a greater contribution to the workings of the United Nations, the OSCE and UN specialised agencies, which tended to be more effective than the UN as a whole.

The interests of Maltese emigrants and their descendants should be given greater importance.

Malta's diplomatic presence must not be restricted to Europe but should be extended to emerging economies with potential for trade exchanges. In this context, however, Malta's diplomats had to be well trained not only in diplomacy, but also in business issues.

Turning to other issues, Mr Brincat asked what the state of relations with gulf countries was. There was the impression that these countries were being cold shouldered.

What was the outcome of the Foreign Minister's visit to Egypt?

Why was the political dimension being ignored in oil purchasing matters? This aspect was important particularly in a possible future scenario of problems related not just to price but also to supply.

Mr Brincat noted that applications had been made for various headships in the Foreign Ministry. It appeared that some people had already been picked, including a director-general. Some appointments, it appeared, were being made to suit people's convenience rather than the ministry's needs.

Mr Brincat asked if it was true that a certain new ambassador or high commissioner appointed by Malta had wanted to spend Lm25,000 on the refurbishment of his residence and he went directly to the Finance Ministry to get this funding? Was it true that the permanent secretary at the ministry offered her resignation because of this?

Mr Brincat said the House had also been misled when the minister denied that Richard Cachia Caruana, Malta's permanent representative to Brussels had called one of his assistants a "bitch" in front of the Swedish ambassador. The official had had to take sick leave, especially when she was also scolded a second time after a parliamentary question he had tabled. Why did Mr Cachia Caruana treat his officials in this way?

On Malta's embassies, Mr Brincat said the government had finally listened to the opposition and was withdrawing one of Malta's two ambassadors in Rome to avoid duplication of work. How much had the opening and closure of the embassy in Hungary cost? What was to become of the embassy in The Hague? Were there plans for an embassy in Lisbon?

Had any headway been made in the inquiry on irregularities at the Voice of the Mediterraean radio station?

What were the Maltese government's preparations for the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting? What follow-ups had there been to the visits by the European and Foreign Affairs Committee in China, Libya and the US?

Turning to the social services agreement between Malta and Australia, Mr Brincat asked if it was true that the Maltese in Australia had only been given minimal information on the update of this important agreement?

Mr Brincat pointed out that it did not count that the Prime Minister had brought up the problem of immigration during his meeting with the US President if he did not ask for assistance. The US gave Malta US$100,000. Although he was grateful, this was not enough. More tangible US help could have been given. Israel, for example, was interested in helping as it had helped Cyprus. It could not help Malta, however, because no formal request had been made.

Was it true that the Prime Minister's visit to the US had had a very strong security focus? Was there any agreement on the ship boarding initiative?

Had the Malta-US technical working group on the double taxation been set up?

Turning to the fisheries protection zone, he asked if it was true that in the case of Tunisia the government had been caught unawares so much so that the minister learnt of the Tunisian declaration from the media?

What concrete proposals were being prepared by the government to present during CHOGM?

Mr Brincat spoke briefly on illegal immigration, saying Malta needed to be more forceful in seeking EU assistance.

The Foreign Ministry was lacking vision and leadership and suffered from demotivation among its diplomats. The time had come to make space for new ideas.