Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1224129
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 22 MARCH 2020 INTERVIEW would have to stay in quarantine for their whole stay! Government kept on dragging its feet on keeping these flight channels open, for reasons it knows best; certainly not public health reasons. This is further proven by the relatively large share of patients diagnosed with Covid-19 who had travelled out from Malta in the beginning of March, well after the global crisis had already got out of hand. Contrary to what the govern- ment said, a lockdown is not a house arrest. A lockdown is a structured framework of meas- ures, agreed to with the social partners, which enforces social distancing so that we avoid in- fecting those amongst us who are most vulnerable. Our proposed approach is backed by the evidence emerging from other jurisdictions: which clearly shows that when govern- ments act too late, the ramifica- tions are fatal. Our healthcare system cannot cope with a massive wave of hos- pitalised cases; and we believe that, at any cost, we should nev- er come to a point wherein we cannot provide care to our sick people. Four employers' associations have urged government to take measures including funding 50% of workers' salaries, and 75% of self-employed income. Do you agree with government intervention to that extent, and... is it sustainable? The PN's anchor proposal to safeguard employment is for the government to fund 50% of the employees' salary that the private sector commit to retain through this crisis, even if on reduced ba- sis. The underlying premise is to ensure that the employers and the employees stick together in their enterprise for the tempo- rary period. The 50% would be capped to an amount which is agreed with the constituted bod- ies to ensure that the support granted is focused on middle- to low-income earners. Government's proposed meas- ures are highly inadequate con- sidering the extent of the crisis. Rightly so, the employers' as- sociations did not mince their words in labelling the measures as "disappointing", and path- finders for "massive lay-offs". The government has this illu- sion that businesses have re- serves of super-profits, or are sitting on cash piles. Clearly, this is the strongest indicator of being completely out of touch with the financial and liquidity reality in which industry oper- ates today. Our argument for government aid is to support the employ- ers safeguard their employees' jobs. No employer is keen to let go any of his employees, but no business can sustain a zero-in- come scenario for more than a few weeks. And this is why we cannot allow these businesses to fail. After all, we heard seven years of the pro-business man- tra. Now, businesses – small, medium and large – are asking: where has the pro-business gov- ernment gone? You described the govern- ment's response as 'weak'; but what measures would the PN be contemplating to mitigate the economic crisis, if it were in government today? Certainly the first measure is to adopt a radically differ- ent style. The PN would place teamwork at the core of its ap- proach: teamwork with the oth- er political forces and the social partners. PN governments have gone through difficult economic periods, such as the 2009 global financial meltdown and the re- gional Libya crisis. In all these situations, the PN led a nation- al effort to converge ideas, re- sources and talent to ensure that the best of us comes out in a time of crisis. Secondly, we would introduce measures (which we announced in a timely manner) to ensure businesses are not allowed to fail by joining them in the pri- mary mission to safeguard jobs. What we would certainly not do is to tell businesses that they have benefited from the "best of times", and hence they can now take this hit alone. Thirdly, we would focus to en- sure that the cash flow impact on businesses for this crisis peri- od, and the three-to-six months afterwards, would be softened to the largest extent possible. Rental costs, utility bills and loan repayments apart from tax dues would be put in place on day one, to ensure that employ- ers can focus on how to retain all their employees. Fourthly, we would send sig- nals of hope, and not resigna- tion that the situation cannot be turned around. This needs to be translated into measures appli- cable for each industry and each sector, supporting those which are mostly in need, most aggres- sively hit and which would take longer to recover. The PN has been criticised for 'politicising' the issue. How do you respond to that criticism? I haven't noted or heard that criticism. Quite to the contrary, the social partners, employers and employees have clearly told us that they appreciate the ef- forts we have made and for being a voice for those that have been forgotten. We have certainly not politicised anything when asking the government to include us as an integral part of the effort to coordinate options and solu- tions, to simply have the door slammed in our face, on the spot. At any rate, the PN acted in line with our Constitutional role as the main Opposition party in Parliament. I hope that no one expects that the we simply sit back as spectators on such a situation without putting for- ward our proposals and critique. Moreover, we have a duty – not just a right – to point out issues not being done well, such as the excessive delay in stopping flights which has contributed to an irrational risk exposure of our healthcare system. Come what may, we shall not accept that the employees bear the brunt of the first real eco- nomic hurdle being faced by this government. The economic suc- cess of the country was built by the people; and the wealth gener- ated needs to be returned to the people. businesses to fail Our argument for government aid is to support the employers safeguard their employees' jobs. No employer is keen to let go any of his employees, but no business can sustain a zero-income scenario for more than a few weeks