Prospects are not looking good for the manufacturing industry, according to the latest industry trends survey by the Federation of Industry. As usual, whenever the federation or any other organisation for that matter, analyses the situation in manufacturing, concern is invariably expressed over the erosion of developments taking place in countries which, like Malta, want to take a greater share of established markets in Europe.

A standard complaint raised in any discussion about the manufacturing industry involves the high rates of port charges. As this complaint has been regularly made for several years now, it is highly pertinent to ask one simple question: If the complaint has presented industry with such a big problem, why has it not yet been seen to?

A good insight into the problem is given in the publication about the island's industrial policy published earlier this year by the economic services ministry. It is based on the 1999 White Paper "Prosperity in change" that had sought to identify the principal issues to be tackled and the choice that had to be made by Malta in the formulation of its industrial development policy.

The publication gives a comparison of cost of handling imports from the ship to the port gate at Malta Freeport with those in Marseilles, Barcelona, Rotterdam, Antwerp and the UK. For 20-foot containers, Malta's charges are 206 per cent higher than in Antwerp and about 114 per cent higher than in Rotterdam. Even more alarming is the cost of handling 40-foot containers. Believe it or not, unless there has been a drop since the details were published, the cost is 385 per cent higher than in Antwerp and 241 per cent higher than in Rotterdam.

The study had noted: "This situation is seriously threatening the competitiveness of local industry, which heavily depends on imported capital and industrial supplies, and is also heavily burdening consumers". As if this were not obvious enough, the publication goes on to say that monopoly-induced price mark-ups are a significant contributor to reduced economic growth and push up the unemployment rate.

Now, let us come to the crunch. When this problem has been known to exist for so long, why is it taking what to all intents and purposes seems to be an eternity to grapple with the problem? Some two years ago an effort was made by the parties involved to see how they could solve the problem. What was the end result of that effort? Why and where did it fail? Who are the interests holding up progress to a resolution of the problem?

It does seem that the time for a new effort to be made is well overdue. Here again, as in so many other lines of economic activity, the island needs to move from words to deeds. We have paid lip-service to principles long enough. The time calls for bold action to be taken by whoever is responsible, in this case the government, to break the impasse - if an impasse it is - in order to find a lasting solution. This is a case where the trade unions too should take a tough stand if they really put the workers' interests first.

Outdated rates have to be checked wherever they exist if we want to remain competitive in an economic environment that is becoming more, not less, competitive. The biggest hurdle is overcoming traditional attitudes. This is easier said than done, but overcome them we must if we want to succeed in the drive to generate greater economic growth and improve living standards.