Port users spell out uncertainties

l The principles relating to concessioning and private/ public partnerships are not dealt with in any detail in the draft Bill. They are apparently still being developed by Private Enterprises. This principle should form the part of the legislation. l There are many references in the draft Bill to the regulatory and controlling functions of the NPA (section 35(1), 4(2)(h) and (k)). The precise rights of the NPA should be spelled out in the legislation so that prospective concessionaires and trade and industry generally are able to make long term business decisions with no fear that the rules of the game are going to change. l There is insufficient clarity on the distinction between landlord and operational functions (see section 4(1)). Headlined under "Competition", the NPUF said: "The principle of inter and intra port competition is not reflected in the draft Bill Ð whereas the White Paper resolved to encourage both forms of competition. Looking at "The Ministries" it added: "We believe that it is right and proper that the Minister (transport) responsible for port policy should play a more active role - and that the Ministry of Public Enterprise play more of a figurehead role. Under "Port Regulator", Norton told FTW that this is integral to this legislation. "We cannot comment knowledgeably on the NPA Bill until we have seen the Port Regulator Bill," he said. "We have been told that the Port Regulator bill was wrongly gazetted," said Norton, "and the bill is back with the minister (Dullah Omar) for reconsideration." On "Port Consultative Committees" the NPUF submission recommends that these committees should be established at both national and port levels. "The national level should have direct access to the Minister rather than the consultation role envisaged by section 61(3)," said Norton. Currently there is a hush in the issue, as the industry negotiators await the forthcoming national meeting