Calling 'a spade a spade'

Over the past few weeks there were further developments on the port reform issue. This exercise has spurred many of the service providers to come forward and list the various deficiencies within the present structure. A common feeling transpires among all those who approached me that the exercise should be initiated without any delay in the interest of efficient port operations.

The committee set up by my ministry and the Malta Maritime Authority is concluding studies on an economic/financial model for the port of Valletta. The terms of reference and time-frames I have given the committee envisage no further delays and I am confident that, as stated, most of the reforms will be in place by 2005.

While clearly determined in what we are determined to do, many questions have to be dealt with during negotiations with the service providers. Upon berth, vessels require mooring men but should we maintain the same system? A foreman works on land and a separate one onboard. Can't these two entities work as one? Tally clerks who in the past physically checked unloaded cargo are now faced with freight being already containerised, thus never actually checking what lies inside. Instead they take note of whether a container is offloaded or not. Do we still need this? It is paramount that these, and other issues, are addressed in the interest of the workers themselves, in order to safeguard their job and improve their potential.

For the sake of clarity, I once again maintain the government's intention to make a common and collective effort aimed at an efficient and competitive port regime.

Over the past weeks the role of one of the many providers, Cargo Handling Co. Ltd, wholly owned by the General Workers' Union, also took centre stage. We will proceed with the issue of a call for tenders for handling operations, ensuring that a new agreement is in place when the current one expires in 2006. The shortcomings and blatantly-ignored clauses listed in the contract between MMA and the company include the equipment issue which was handed over to the contractor by the MMA. The GWU claims no responsibility for maintenance and relevant upkeep. It has shed responsibility for each ignored clause to which its attention has been drawn. It can hardly realise operations leave much to be desired.

Yet, the equipment issue requires clarification. Clause 3 of the agreement entered into in 1998 between the MMA and Cargo Handling Co. Ltd (the contractor) lays down that "the plant and equipment... shall be loaned by the authority to the contractor; plant and equipment shall be operated, maintained and repaired by the contractor... in the event of the termination of this agreement for any reason (it shall) be returned to the authority in the same good condition in which it was made available, fair wear and tear only to be accepted... throughout the term of this agreement, the contractor shall at his own expense provide necessary fuel, other requirements and any replacement parts, and staff necessary to effect repairs, maintain and operate all equipment... throughout the term of this agreement, the contractor shall replace at his own expense any plant or equipment destroyed or damaged beyond repair through any cause other than an Act of God".

In view of this, are not the logical contractual obligations regarding the maintenance of equipment crystal clear? The government will not tolerate a situation whereby, due to deficiencies, the company resorts to subcontracting, hence burdening port users with irrational bills for both the subcontractor's and the company's services.

Why did the shareholder seek to misinform the public on such important issues? Emmanuel Micallef, the GWU's deputy secretary general, had written that we are "robbing Peter to pay Paul". I leave it up to the readers to comment.

I have untiringly pronounced myself on the basic principles of this reform stating on several occasions that every service provider has to recognise the urgency for implementation.

The Leader of Opposition, when questioned by The Times, and also in his weekly contribution to the GWU's weekly last Sunday, explicitly stated that the reform is an attempt by the government to undermine Cargo Handling Co. Ltd! Such comments raise eyebrows. Why is he steering away from recognising the positive bearing the port reform will bring about on domestic competitiveness? Why is he in parallel with the GWU?

I am sure the associations somehow connected to port users express themselves to the Leader of Opposition in the same manner they do when meeting me. I am also sure they convey the same repeated message about the negative effects of present port practices on our economy. With this in mind I hope the Labour Party finds the courage to call a spade a spade rather than trying to toe the GWU's line.

Mr Galea is Minister for Competitiveness and Communications.
www.mcmp.gov.mt