Cargo handling: Beyond the silence...

It looks like finally the silence has been broken. As I have underlined on more than one occasion, it has on no account been the government's intention to single out, or point fingers at, individual entities or practices.

All port operations are in some way or other intertwined. Each and every service provider operating within our port does bear responsibility for ensuring that the port reform exercise will eliminate duplication of work and charges and, ultimately, bring about a competitive and superior service based on a rational cost regime.

However, comments passed over the past few days do merit a reply. Emanuel Micallef, deputy general secretary of the General Workers' Union (the union is the owner of Cargo Handling Co. Ltd), said in an article in The Times that the company aimed at being the terminal operator of the ports and was investing its resources for this purpose.

He further states that the company had submitted a number of proposals to a task force set up by the ministry to see how this "genuine strategy for the future" could be reached.

I will not reply to all of Mr Micallef's comments, not only due to lack of space but also because several of the issues have been discussed many times within the Ports Consultative Council as well as on several other occasions.

If we are seeking efficiency, how can one justify that various clauses and conditions of the agreement entered into with MMA are blatantly disregarded by the company?

How is it that, although the company responsible for the handling of cargo is in possession of the equipment required for the operations, it has sought, in the majority of cases, the unauthorised services of a privileged private contractor instead of undertaking the work itself? This contractor charges an additional and separate expense to the agent of Lm7 or Lm12 for a 20-foot or a 40-foot container.

To add insult to injury, and as a clear example of double handling and charging, the company still includes its handling fees for unloading!

The proposed port reform exercise has in no instance identified one sole service provider for an efficiency update. Therefore, Cargo Handling Co. Ltd's claim that they are being put in a bad light, apart from being totally unjustified, is wrong.

Having been members of the Ports Consultative Council, with a high official in attendance, they should be fully aware of this fact. "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" is not on the government's agenda. We are determined to start this exercise and this time there is no stopping us.

What we are incessantly objecting to is that at present ship-shore operations involve double practices and charging in respect to the handling of cargo and the agents. Why do ship and shore operations have to act in two separate regimes requiring obsolete work practices which add to the overall costing of the final bill?

Why should the handling of cargo be at times much more expensive than the actual shipping of the same goods to Malta? And, most importantly, why should you, as the consumer and end-user, carry such additional and unjustified charges which no longer make sense in 2004?

For the benefit of clarity, I am reproducing an approximate table of percentage costs compiled by the Malta Maritime Authority, identifying the handling charges by organisation, in descending order, for the import of a 40-foot full container at the Valletta port:

I underline that this is an approximate exercise, as costs are a mind-boggling regime to many. Any percentage decrease from the above figures will make our ports more competitive.

I sincerely hope that none of the stakeholders pride themselves at the fact that Malta is one of the most expensive ports when compared to others in the Mediterranean.

Where work practices are obsolete, these will be removed; where double charging is present, this will be stopped and where charges are sky high, these will be revisited with a view to establishing the basic principle that payments will be made for tangible work being done and not to keep up with traditional practice. We will not be succumbing to any threats.

The Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise, the Federation of Industry and a number of other service providers have already stated that they fully support the reform.

Our common belief and driving force is that nothing should hinder our nation's potential for an increase in competitiveness, taking into consideration the social context as stated in the Lisbon Agenda, wherever this is achievable, and that must also include our ports.

We are now departing from mere words and the drive is gathering momentum... I hope there will soon be others who are ready to get on board too.

Mr Galea is Minister of Competitiveness and Communications.

www.mcmp.gov.mt