The safeguard clause

It appears that the "safeguard clause" has inherited the status of the small print normally associated with an insurance policy. I have heard comments like "... beware of the small print in the EU Accession Treaty - Article 37".

Perhaps it merited a sounder interpretation than the vivid imagination we all had on its use and abuse. Let me be very clear. The safeguard clause is viewed as a necessary and important tool by the agriculture sector in our quest to operate in an open market.

Several views were expressed, practically from all quarters: the government, the opposition in parliament, shadow minister Noel Farrugia, the Federation of Industry, the Consumers' Association, ourselves - the Malta Agriculture Lobby and MRAE. Where do we go from here?

My first concern is the Consumers' Association. If they doubt our intentions then we must have gone wrong somewhere. How can I assure them they were our primary concern all along? My reference to "our" should be interpreted as universal, that is, everybody, in fact all the people/organisations mentioned above.

When it became clearly evident that the sector will not withstand the pressures of an open market, there was a hive of activity at sectoral level, at representative level, at political party level, at Meusac, at MAF and at the cabinet, leading to the setting up of SMPPMA. At all stages, it was the consumer's right to have access to a meaningful and qualitative choice that came first and foremost. Hence, the Consumers' Association criticism is of grave concern to me and I would like to take the opportunity to discuss this matter with them at their convenience.

The Malta Agriculture Lobby has been taking several initiatives to publicise local produce and, although we are heartened by the consumers' response, we shall leave no stone unturned to satisfy all consumers, even the Consumers' Association itself.

We have a marvellous product and we would like to get this product to consumers in the best state and at the best price money can buy.

In fact, we would like to appeal to consumers to help us eradicate mediocrity, wherever this may be apparent. We know consumers deserve the best and this is what we are guaranteeing to provide them with. There was never any intention to leave them out of the equation. This would be sheer madness.

My next concern is to get a fruitful dialogue going between the parties concerned. Why should the MRAE be taking the initiative to meet the parties individually?

The time is ripe for us to learn to take our own initiatives. My appeal goes to the FOI, the Chamber of Commerce and to the GRTU, besides others. Let us meet and discuss these and other crucial issues, which are of common concern to us all.

Let us then present a common front on the matters that we agree to. I am convinced this approach will also benefit MRAE. Time is precious and crucial and, besides, we will all readily accept the mechanics of the safeguard clause if we all feel part of the whole process.

My other concern is to get the sector depoliticised. It would be wishful thinking if we do not get the support, on this cause, from all concerned.

There is too much at stake for any political party or politician to try and score cheap points. On the other hand, the authorities should desist from using the Department of Information to get the upperhand on a point being discussed.

They should use the same means available to us. By all means, let us keep the debate going on a level playing field.

Mr Naudi is chairman and chief executive officer, Malta Agriculture Lobby.