Obsolete work practices harbouring within our ports will go
by
Censu Galea

Government is concluding the formulation of a strategic plan seeking to enhance the overall competitiveness of our ports, thus aiding industy’s needs and eliminating ghost expenses for work practices which are no longer necessary in today’s working environment.

The reform we speak about involves the various aspects of the handling of cargo and provision of services within our harbours, which as an ultimate aim requires to ensure that shipping activities operate within a competitive harbour, further attracting new activities due to cost-effective operations. The statement that Maltese ports are expensive when compared to others within our region is no longer acceptable. The situation reigning around the key players operating there is no longer tenable.

The exercise being conducted by the Ministry for Competitiveness and Communications and the Malta Maritime Authority, is earmarking areas requiring attention and measures for eventual reforms. Double-charging for double-handling results in additional and unnecessary expenses to be absorbed by industry and ultimately reflected on the consumer. So if we are in agreement that instilling competitiveness is one of Malta’s primary objectives, and all the key players sound this priority at every available opportunity, what should or could hold us back? If we agree that dishonoured agreements are not tenable, and illegal payment proceedings should cease, why should anyone be inclined that these concepts can still continue to take place?

Government has recognised the crucial role that port activities and services play in our economy, both as an internal activity as well as providing support to the local industry, and within this context we promoted discussions between the social partners – setting up in the process the Ports Consultative Council; the Maritime Institute was reorganised; a Foundation for Transport Studies was set-up, whilst we supported the efforts of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (Malta).

It is precisely the exercise of promoting discussion that the Ports Consultative Council served as the fulcrum for an exchange of views with regards to our ports. It was within this Council that all the main stakeholders gathered together for the formulation of the way forward, which we will be embarking upon in the near future. I quote from the report issued by the Ports Consultative Council that, “the ports and the port areas, port management institutions, employment systems and standards used, and the financial regime” are to, upon recommendation of the same Council, “be covered in order for Government to propagate such a national ports policy.” That is precisely what we intend to do. Why should the importation of a 20 or 40 foot container carry much more expenses than its actual shipping to Malta? Why should a privileged private contractor receive Lm7 or Lm12 per container, whilst illegally acting against all agreements signed with the original parties, and thus contributing to at least 5% additional expenses on the ultimate bill?

The Ports Consultative Council was composed of all the key stakeholders operating within our ports being amongst others, the Malta Maritime Authority, the Cargo Handling Co. Ltd., the Pilotage Corps, Tug Malta Ltd, the Port Workers, the Association of Ship Agents, Ship Suppliers and Insurance Agents respectively, also complimented by the Chamber of Commerce, FOI, GWU and UHM, all of whom possess a copy of the recommendations issued. Several of these are in accordance with the reform, and I augur that they will maintain their positions all throughout. It is the national agenda here that is in question and to achieve our targets we will not be threatened for the personal interests of a selected few.

I have underlined in several recent occasions that this is not a finger pointing exercise as being translated or spinned by some entities forming an integral part of our ports. Recent contributions in the media have been a weak attempt at drawing sympathy at present practices of work, which in spite of being a source of revenue no longer make sense. If there is no sense in keeping these practices in 2004, then logic states that these should be replaced or removed. Reducing tariffs does not necessarily mean reduced income to the stakeholders since the desired and ultimate result of having Maltese ports more competitive when compared to others in our region is bound to be an additional attraction to a potential increase in throughput volumes of cargo, possibly reflecting in earnings which could surpass those enjoyed at present.

A short description of the justified/unjustified charges imposed on the importation of cargo in our ports, gives a good description of what I mean. The import of one container carries charges for pilotage, tugs, mooring men, shore foremen, ship foremen, tally clerks, port workers, cargo handling, a privileged private contractor substituting the handling of cargo operator’s (that is the Cargo Handling Co. Ltd.) responsibility (sic!), the ship agent and, maybe finally, the truck driver. Are all these service providers required for today’s operations? Keeping in mind the social context we are determined to revisit these work practices, and where useless, change or remove, thus easing the charges on the ulimate bill. Such are the approximate charges involved for the handling of a forty foot container:

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 presume that all stakeholders are in agreement that the whole structure should be revisited. If not, I understand that they are content witnessing additional unjustified costs to operators and the fact that Maltese port services are amongst the most expensive in the Mediterranean. Government has always maintained that national interests steer away from these concepts.

We are determined to move on. The constituted bodes who have incessantly reverberated this urgent need are determined to move on too. There is a national consensus on the urgency of implementation for the much discussed port reform. Ad nauseum discussions are not on the agenda. Concrete plans for reform, enhancing the competitiveness for our ports, are.

Censu Galea is Minister of Competitiveness and Communications

www.mcmp.gov.mt