So exponents of the Malta Labour Party have now mounted the bandwagon of an insipid campaign that the party in government is ignoring Gozo's needs on EU funding. This is rich coming from a party whose policy option would have yielded zero funds for Gozo.

The truth is that Gozo has secured a very good funding deal and this is singularly due to the political commitment of the party in government towards Gozo.

As an MEP, I am honoured to have been entrusted with the vote of thousands of Gozitans in the last European Parliament elections and I therefore want to set the record straight on an issue that I have followed at close quarters.

First the facts.

During accession negotiations, the question arose as to whether Malta and Gozo should be considered as distinct regions for EU funding purposes. (This is known in the obscurely technical term of NUTS II region.) Although the government was initially inclined to go down this route (more precisely to divide the country into three distinct regions) it soon emerged that this option would have required separate new bureaucracies to manage the funds for each of the regions. In Gozo's case, this may well have meant more EU money spent on bureaucracy than on projects.

Definitely not cost effective.

The fall back position, which proved to make more sense, was to establish one single national region for funding purposes and two separate regions - Malta and Gozo/Comino - for statistical purposes. This option rationalised bureaucracy but also enabled Gozo to be treated distinctly for collecting regional statistics. Statistics, it bears recalling, are the basis for decisions on funding allocation. Thus, two regions at NUTS III level were established.

At the time, it was established that Gozo's level of economic development stood at just around 70 per cent of the national average which, in turn, was less than 75 per cent of the EU average. I have recently read that, on average, between 2000 and 2005, Gozo's GDP stood at around 84 per cent of the national mean.

So the disparity remains and is compounded by other factors, such as different investment and employment patterns, largely attributed to Gozo's double insularity.

It is this disparity and these permanent disadvantages that lie at the basis of our commitment to Gozo.

During negotiations, the government scored another two important points.

The first was to decide unilaterally, albeit with the acquiescence of the European Commission, to make Gozo a priority objective in the spending of EU funds by allocating a minimum 10 per cent of the national EU funding allocation.

This pledge has since been repeated in relation to Malta's EU funding envelop of €855 million for the period 2007-2013, which translates into a staggering €85 million of EU funds for Gozo. This means that, on a per capita basis, a Gozo resident will benefit from more EU funds than a resident of Malta. This is an important point that bears stressing because it is often ignored or taken for granted.

I wonder if a Labour government would keep this priority objective for the island region of Gozo. Its track record shows that it downgraded the Gozo Ministry, let alone a funding commitment.

The second was to deal with the issue of what happens to Gozo when Malta loses its eligibility for the highest level of EU funding. In other words, what happens when Malta's national wealth rises above the 75 per cent mark of the EU average while Gozo's remains below.

This question is only relevant if and when Malta loses its eligibility, which is not the case at least until 2013. This may or may not happen after 2013 largely depending on whether Malta's economic growth accelerates well ahead of other EU countries.

To address this question, the Maltese government annexed a Declaration On The Island Region Of Gozo to the Accession Treaty spelling out its intention to continue addressing Gozo's specific needs effectively.

The operative part of this declaration stated that before the end of each EU budgetary period, Malta would request the Commission to report on the economic and social situation of Gozo and propose appropriate measures to rectify any disparities in development between Gozo and Malta. In particular, in the event that Malta no longer qualifies for the highest level of EU funding.

Since a new seven-year EU budgetary period commenced this year, the question arose recently as to whether Malta had called upon the Commission to undertake such a study.

This question was legitimate if somewhat out of context since the issue of Malta's ineligibility has not yet arisen.

I am not privy to whether any such study has been requested as I am not part of the Administration. What I can say is that it could have been requested in line with the declaration. However, I would not be surprised if it were not. For two simple reasons.

The first is that an extensive study of Gozo's special needs was already undertaken prior to membership in a much-publicised exercise involving stakeholders. My understanding is that the results of this study already form the basis upon which EU funds are being spent in Gozo, now and in the coming years.

So rather than embark on a new study, what we really need is to continue to implement the recommendations of the first one - which is, in fact, what is being done.

The second is that the situation that should have triggered such a request - namely, Malta losing its eligibility for EU funding - has not yet materialised. As explained, both Malta and Gozo are still eligible to the highest level of EU funding through to (at least) 2013. This was achieved in 2005 when the government succeeded in keeping the entire national territory eligible for the highest level of EU funds under what was formerly known as Objective One and now Convergence status.

This means that, regardless of whether a new report on Gozo was undertaken, the end result would still have been exactly what we have already achieved, namely, both Malta and Gozo being eligible for the highest level of EU funding.

There is no question that no additional EU funds would have been acquired for Gozo if a new study was undertaken since Gozo is already eligible for the highest level of EU funding. Not only. But, by virtue of the decision taken at national level by the current government, Gozo's share will be higher still because it will continue to benefit from a distinct 10 per cent allocation.

This is not to say that I am against Gozo's special needs to continue to be assessed on an ongoing basis. Far from it. I am on record as having requested the European Commission to start undertaking reports on the special needs of islands on a regular basis. And I will continue to press for this. But to use this issue to give the impression that Gozo is being ignored is manipulative and downright incorrect. Because the opposite is the truth.

Gozo has already secured a very good deal indeed. And we should not shy away from stating it.

Readers who would like to ask questions to be answered in this column can send an e-mail, identifying themselves, to contact@simonbusuttil.eu or through www.simonbusuttil.eu.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.