The government would continue to assist and support those farmers and producers who were upgrading to modern EU standards but would come down heavily on establishments which were sub-standard and made no real effort to modernise, Rural Affairs Minister George Pullicino said.

He was speaking in Parliament during the debate on an Opposition motion which demanded that the government keep promises made before May last year to farmers and producers. The motion demanded government action to pull the agriculture sector back from the brink of disaster.

Mr Pullicino said the opposition, which had so strongly opposed EU membership, was now calling on the government to keep promises made before Malta joined the EU. That, indeed, was what the government was doing.

But was the opposition still nostalgic about the partnership it had sought instead of membership? The EU had made it clear that the free trade agreement which Labour had wanted to reach with the bloc had to include agriculture and fisheries. That meant that Maltese farmers would have been exposed to competition from imports, as was currently the case, without the restructuring aid that was now being given, as promised by this government.

The charges now underway to modernise the sector were being increasingly appreciated, as evidenced, for example, by a letter in the press by Edward Borg of poultry processor Buxom Ltd who had praised the government for clamping down on establishments having poor standards.

Mr Pullicino said the government was seeking to make domestic production more competitive while consumers were enjoying unparalleled freedom of choice thanks to trade liberalisation. What was the opposition proposing instead? Did it want to revert to the times when people could only buy certain products?

Mr Pullicino said that the costs for producers to import from non-EU countries had to be carried, as the government was not willing to subsidise them, its priority being the promotion of the local product.

Indeed, the restructuring aid that was being given to various sectors was already yielding results and domestic products were increasingly holding their own against imports, such as in the case of milk. Many farms were now much more modern and producing much safer products.

The conditions negotiated for the agriculture sector ahead of EU membership were among the best in the 10 new member states, as evidenced, for example, by the safeguard clause which could be invoked in the case of certain imports when they distorted the market.

At the slaughterhouse, the level of investment that had been made was higher than ever before, but more needed to be done, including the installation of a new incinerator.

Mr Pullicino observed that Lm7 million were given in subsidies for milk and meat-producing cattle. Another Lm1 million was given as subsidy on grain and maize.

The government was clearly keeping its promises and translating them into direct assistance to farmers in order to improve their product.

The minister said that one way how the government wanted to protect consumers and domestic production was by laying down that product labels should specify the quality of the product, such as water content and other parameters. That way, one would avoid the abuse of imported products being sold off as fresh local products.

The government would continue to assist the industry and would next week hand out an additional €1 million to three poultry producers, a pork producer, a tomato grower, a wine producer, two potato growers, a rabbit breeder and an olive producer.

Winding up, Opposition agriculture spokesman Noel Farrugia said that while the government boasted of helping the sector, crates were not even being washed at the Ta' Qali vegetable market and growers were having to wash them themselves.

Law enforcement also left much to be desired. Health authorities should be asked how many instances there had been of poultry products found in non-refrigerated containers. Last year the poultry producers' cooperative had gone bankrupt because of the crisis the industry was in. Part of the cause was mistakes in the way government subsidies were given, negatively affecting the breeders.

Mr Farrugia said he expected answers as to why farmers were getting less money for the beef they were taking to the slaughterhouse. The government did not know what was happening. If a 50 per cent drop in the price of cow beef did not represent a crisis, what did?

The government said much on subsidies, but then it raised costs elsewhere. The poultry industry, for example, had suffered from the rise in the price of kerosene. And now everybody expected the price of gas to follow.

The minister in speaking about milk production had not given any timeframe on when the threshold 3.5 per cent fat content in milk was to be reached. If the MDP was doing well, the minister should have said when it would again be in a position to pay producers the 32c per gallon they used to be paid before.

The minister should also have said when pig slaughter would reach the 2,300 heads instead of the current 800 to 1,000.

The situation was that producers were being made to invest much more than they could afford.

Unless this problem, created by the government, was analysed, the situation would continue to deteriorate, Mr Farrugia said.

The first part of the debate was carried yesterday. The motion was defeated after a division.