The House of Representatives has unanimously approved a motion to allow an extension of Malta Freeport through land reclamation. The motion also makes possible an extension of the lease of the facility to French group CMA CGM by 35 years to 65 years.
Public Investments Minister Austin Gatt described the Freeport as a success story for Malta.
He said the decision taken in 2004 to privatise the Freeport had been proved to be correct, with the port having seen substantial investment and strong growth in throughput handled by French group CMA CGM. It was worth recalling that Opposition leader Alfred Sant had been among those who criticised this privatisation process at the time and as recently as 2006.
He said that CMA CGM in three years had invested €45 million and created 232 new jobs. Throughput rose from 1.2 million containers in 2004 to 1.9 million last year.
And now CMA CGM had committed themselves to invest a further €130 million and raise throughput to three million containers. Jobs will increase by a further 500 in five years, subject to penalties if that does not happen. There could be no better certificate of the success of the government’s privatisation policy, Dr Gatt said.
Opposition finance spokesman Charles Mangion said the opposition was backing this motion. So too was Birzebbuga local council. He insisted, however, that the Freeport extension needed to be seen in the context of sustainable development, the impact on the environment and the impact on the lives of nearby residents. Would noise levels rise as a result of the new equipment? Would seawater quality deteriorate in the bay?
Dr Mangion said Mediterranean cargo traffic was expected to increase in the future and CMA CGM were right in seeking to put themselves in a good position to cater for this growth. He was concerned, however, that the text of the proposed agreement with the French group was not fully binding and CMA CGM could opt not to go through with part of the proposed investment.
Furthermore, Dr Mangion said, once dredging was required to facilitate the operator’s work, why was the government being bound to spend up to $15 million for the purpose? Surely that should be the responsibility of the operator?
Interjecting, Dr Gatt said ‘capital dredging’ was already a legal obligation of the Malta Maritime Authority, with the operator responsible for maintenance dredging. It was international practice that the fairway was the responsibility of the port owner since it could be used by all port users. At Marsaxlokk, the fairway could be used for ships going to the Enemalta facility. The fairway will be dredged to just over 17m.
Concluding, Dr Mangion said one welcomed this investment but it had to be ensured that the social and environment impacts were also considered. He, therefore, urged CMA CGM to give importance to corporate social responsibility.
Dr Gatt said the fact that the opposition was voting in favour of this motion marked a u-turn from the position in 2004 when it was still against the privatisation of the Freeport. Such u-turns were becoming frequent, leading one to wonder if the MLP would have a change of heart over the promises it was currently making.
Dr Gatt said the environmental impact studies were part of the development process being handled by Mepa. A number of studies had already been submitted and on that basis Mepa had already granted an outline development permit.
Dr Gatt said the new agreement with CMA CGM meant a guarantee for the future, for Malta, for the Freeport workers and for local industry, which was benefiting from shipping links to all parts of the world. The future looked good because CMA CGM was one of the leading shipping lines and it was growing fast, commissioning a new ship practically every two weeks. It was important, however, that Malta remained efficient and competitive, given the stiff competition that existed.
Picture shows a plan of the freeport with the planned extensions marked in red.