Beyond the silence…and the handling of cargo
by
Censu Galea
Minister of Competitiveness and Communications
www.mcmp.gov.mt

It looks like finally the silence did break. Having a loan from The Tremeloes track seems to have left the desired bearing! As I have underlined on more than one occasion, it has on no account been government’s intention, to single out or point fingers at individual entities or practices. I believe it is now more comprehensible that all port operations are in some way or another intertwined together, and that each and every service provider operating within our harbours, does bear the responsibility of ensuring that the port reform exercise will eradicate 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. Mr. Emanuel Micallef, Deputy Secretary General of the General Workers Union, which Union is the owner of Cargo Handling Co. Ltd., has stated in his recent article on The Times that the company aims at being the terminal operator of the ports and is investing its resources in doing so. Also, he further states that the company had submitted a number of proposals to a task force set up by this Ministry to reflect 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 since several of the issues were discussed for many times within the Ports Consultative Council as well as on several other occasions.

I do not intend to start afresh with discussions that have already taken place. However, if we are after 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 that although the company responsible for the handling of cargo is in possession of the equipment required for the operations, and instead of undertaking this task, on the majority of occasions it has sought the unauthorised services of a privileged private contractor who charges an additional and separate expense to the agent of Lm7 or Lm12 for a twenty foot or a forty foot container respectively? To add insult to injury, and as a clear example of double handling and charging, the company still includes its handling fees for unloading!

I state again, that the port reform exercise has, in no instance, identified one sole service provider to be earmarked for an efficiency update. Therefore, Cargo Handling Co.Ltd’s. claims that they are being put into bad light, apart from being totally unjustified, are wrong at their inception. Having been members of the Ports Consultative Council, with a high official in attendance, they should be fully aware of this fact. Here we are stating realities, and this will be done all along. “Robbing Peter to pay Paul” is not government’s agenda. We are, however, determined to commence this exercise and this time there is no stopping.

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 adding onto the overall costing of the final bill? Why should at times the handling of cargo be much more expensive than its actual shipping 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, hereunder 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 forty foot full container at Valletta port:

The Cargo Handling Co. Ltd 30%
Pension & Contingency Fund 18%
Hauliers 13%
Port Workers 13%
Agent 11%
Malta Maritime Authority 5%
The private contractor 5%
Customs 2%
Foreman (Shore and Ship) 2%
Tally Clerks 1%

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 harbours 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 establish the basic principle that payments will be effected for tangible work being done and not for tradition’s sake. We will not be succumbing to any threatening.

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 necessity of this 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 departing from mere words and the ball is increasing in momentum….I hope that there will soon be others who are ready to get on board too.