I would like to correct the wrong impression that might have been given by the article Labour “was right” on safeguard clause (TMID, 2 April).

It is of the utmost importance to point out that the Maltese government negotiated a safeguard clause for the agricultural sector and one can verify this with the Treaty of Accession that was negotiated with the European Union. In May 2006 European Commissioner Mariann Fisher Boel replied to Joseph Muscat (MEP) that she did not agree with the claims being made by Maltese farmers: “Under the current circumstances, and on the basis of its present knowledge, the commission does not think that the safeguard clause measures would be justified.”

She said that measures could be adopted “should difficulties arise which are serious and liable to persist in any sector of the economy or which could bring about serious deterioration in the situation of a given area”.

The Commissioner explained that the purpose of the safeguard clause is to rectify the situation and adjust the sector concerned to the economy of the common market.

Ms Fisher Boel added that “as expected, for most of the sensitive products, market prices in Malta have gone down since the day of accession, but they have remained higher than the EU average between 2004 and today. Imports are attractive and Malta needs most of these imports, mainly of processed products, due to the importance of tourism, in order to cover the increased demand”.

With regard to the safeguard clause, the Maltese government published a Legal Notice 234/2004, in which a reference is made to protective measures, which can be applied in accordance to article 37 of the treaty and article 7(A) 1(C) of the annex of the same treaty.

The safeguard clause is not the only measure to be taken to protect the agricultural sector. It is in fact the last option available to the government. The Maltese government helped this sector by giving financial aid to farmers in order to make all the necessary restructuring to be able to compete with the other European farmers. In 2006 government gave more than Lm9 million (almost E21 million) to the agricultural sector. It is clear that the one who is trying to deceive is Joseph Muscat since he was the recipient of the answers given by Commissioner Fischer Boel and he conveniently chose to ignore them.

Mr Muscat, like the Labour opposition, are still trying to come to terms with the fact that the doomsday scenario which they envisaged for Malta post-accession did not materialise. Mr Muscat must be reminded that the government conducted its accession negotiations with no help from his party. On the other hand, Labour missed no chance to try and derail the attempts by the government to ensure the best package for Malta. It must be pointed out that Labour perseveres in using this tactic and Mr Muscat will be well-remembered for his threat in 2005 that he intended to freeze millions in EU aid for the ambitious waste management policies adopted by this administration.

Even though Labour tries to give the impression that they now accept EU membership, they lose no opportunity to indulge in the nostalgia of the pre-accession years. Mr Muscat would do well to explain to farmers what the Labour partnership proposal would have meant to the Maltese agricultural sector. Effectively, that would have meant a free-trade area in the sector without any single cent in aid from the EU to protect the local farmers, herdsmen and the agricultural sector.

Randolph Spiteri

Communications Coordinator

Parliamentary Secretariat for Agriculture and Fisheries

Valletta