Even though Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi tried to give the impression on Smash TV that the government had nothing to do with the Gama Textiles project in Malta, this was perhaps one of the very first projects to have its advent on the island announced courtesy of a Department of Information press release.
It is still not too clear what went really wrong with this project.
While sections of the media have been quick to blame it on the bank for having failed to provide the necessary finance, I have heard that the company failed to pass the due diligence test by Malta Enterprise. Is this true or false?
Where government stands to be blamed most is for having hyped this project so much only days after having declared, through its Investments Minister, that it saw no future for the textiles sector in Malta, so much so that it expected it to be wiped out within the next decade.
When Labour spokesmen, including the undersigned, remarked on this contradiction, the government was quick to point out that Gama did not intend setting up a high volume, low tech production line for the mass production of jeans, but a centre of excellence for the finishing of jeans according to customers’ needs.
This was not a Gama statement, but a statement issued by the ministry concerned.
We were also told that the jeans were intended for retail at the high end of the market, since Gama considered this to be the only way in which a textile operation could be commercially viable here in Malta.
We were promised, through government, that Gama would be investing in technology, machinery and skills, with the minister reminding us that they were aware of the competence and experience of Maltese workers in this sector, although they intended to upgrade their skills even further to create a world-class operation, reputedly for high fashion jeans wear, tailor-made to personalised requirements.
For this purpose, Gama were even reported to have met the Employment and Training Corporation to coordinate their training requirements to meet the standards of the new operation.
MITI’s biggest promise was that the new project was expected to employ about 400 workers and that Gama intended to give preference to former employees of the Denim Services Group of Companies.
The ministry, in fact, said that this was welcome news for both the government’s investment promotion activities and also for former Denim employees.
It would be interesting to find out how Gama actually found itself attracted to Malta, by whom and when the decision to locate locally was taken, as well as why the minister spoke about manufacturing with such low regard, when such a project could have already been in the pipeline.
Although PM Gonzi tried to keep his distance from this project on Smash TV, as I mentioned earlier on, Dr Gatt said that government was committed to assist in the fast setting up of Gama in Malta, particularly because Gama officials were, according to him, positively impressed by what the country had to offer.
We were even reminded that the fact that employees understood English gave Malta an edge over other competitors.
Nobody can blame the General Workers Union for having scared this project from our shores because in a statement they had welcomed the news of this project and the company’s pledge to give priority to former Denim employees. The GWU textiles section had even said that if the need arose, it was more than willing to meet representatives of the company to vouch for the workers.
Given all these “facts” we have every right to find out what went wrong and what is the truth behind the aborted Gama saga.
Did the government try to seek the involvement of other banks to explore all the possibilities of getting the
project off the ground?
As things stand, the Denim employees have been taken for a ride for the second time in a row, on the basis of empty promises.
Labour surely must be commended for having kept mum while the discussions were under way so as not to be blamed if the negotiations failed. Which they did.
A matter of confidentiality
Last week I tabled two parliamentary questions – one on the tourism sector and the other on the manufacturing sector. In both cases I asked how many projects had started and/or been wound up.
While the Tourism Minister gave me a detailed account of new hotel ventures and hotel closures, the Investments Minister merely told me how many manufacturing projects had closed. When it came to stating which firms were involved, he refrained from doing so on the pretext that this was a matter of commercial confidentiality.
e-mail: [email protected]