Claudia Calleja
Court ruling on new licences made hearse owners change their mind
The president of the Motor Hearse Association apologised for any grief caused by the delaying of funerals due to the hearses' involvement in the national public transport strike.
"I apologise for the inconvenience caused but one needs to keep in mind that Malta is small and we were only trying to protect our livelihood," John Bray told The Times after his association announced it was withdrawing from the strike.
"We never meant to hurt anyone but felt we had no choice other than this action... We condemn any violence that took place."
Three days into the strike, on Wednesday evening, the MHA pulled out of the Transport Federation - that led the action sparked off by last week's government decision to liberalise the hearse industry.
Mr Bray explained that on Wednesday the court rejected a request for a warrant of prohibitory injunction to stop the issuing of new hearse licences. As a result, five hearse licences (four in Malta and one in Gozo) were issued.
Following the court ruling, the MHA felt it had no alternative but to seek an agreement with the government. And given the way things evolved, he said, the MHA felt there was no longer any point in remaining within the federation - whose aim was to combat the threat of liberalisation - once the hearse industry had been liberalised.
Mr Bray thanked the federation, led by Victor Spiteri, for its support adding he wished things had turned out differently and the MHA remained with the federation till the end.
He denied being asked by the federation to pay a fine for pulling out.
In the agreement - signed by Transport Minister Austin Gatt, Malta Transport Authority chairman Simon Vella and Mr Bray on Wednesday - the MHA pledged to withdraw from the federation and stop action while the government committed itself to giving the association €230,000 to face the challenges of liberalisation and not to issue licences for second-hand hearses for 10 years.
Transport Minister Austin Gatt said last night that the figure of €230,000 was calculated on the possible loss of earnings faced by association members. The sum would also cover marketing expenses to help the association retain its present market share, he explained.
Mr Bray said the MHA has not yet decided how to use the money. He explained that they insisted on the clause on second-hand cars in order to protect its members' interests who had incurred hefty expenses when they purchased new hearses (each costing about €105,000) following an unsigned agreement with the government in the previous legislature.
Asked whether the MHA would be changing its prices due to competition brought about by new hearses, he said it was too early to tell, adding that next week association members would meet to discuss the best way forward.
As for the way the new hearses would affect business, he said he was sure they would feel the pinch.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
Updated: Shot migrant in critical...
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Yana Mintoff: Family speaking to...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
J. Martinelli
Jul 18th 2008, 20:35
F Gauci, maybe unintentionally, but you got things exactly backwards.
1. The hearse owners wanted the status quo. If any, they succumbed to the government's decision to liberalize the industry.
2. When someone imposes conditions which go contrary to what was the norm, then compensation is given as was in this case.
3. The government did not 'accept the10-year-no-second-hand-cars clause' - the government IMPOSED it. In other words, the new licences issued cannot used to import older used vehicles, therefore the quality of the hearses improves.
However, I am still waitying for Mr. Bray to answer my question though I am not holding my breath.
F Gauci
Jul 18th 2008, 18:44
All this points to one thing, mainly the goverment has succumbed to their wishes yet again. Of course they pull out of the Transport Federation when the govt hands the poor guys 230, 000 Euros and accepts the10-year-no-second-hand-cars clause. I wonder who exactly is governing this country?!
J. Martinelli
Jul 18th 2008, 15:53
Mr Bray wrote, "I apologise for the inconvenience caused but one needs to keep in mind that Malta is small and we were only trying to protect our livelihood," Apology accepted!
But there is one minor detail which Mr. Bray needs explaining.
Since Malta is small and the hearse owners were only trying to protect their livelihood, how come, if reports are correct, that the five new licences were bought by an existing hearse operator? That must really endear him with his fellow hearse operators.
Some businessman ! He is trying to compete with himself?
I think that the hearse operators withdrew because they realized that they got themselves in a pickle.
K Mifsud
Jul 18th 2008, 12:39
"Asked whether the MHA would be changing its prices due to competition brought about by new hearses, he said it was too early to tell, adding that next week association members would meet to discuss the best way forward."
An association setting or even discussing prices in this manner is known as cartelisation and is a criminal offence under article 5 of the Maltese Competition Act (and article 81 of the EC Treaty):
"...the following is prohibited, that is to say any agreement between undertakings, any decision by an association of undertakings and any concerted practice between undertakings having the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within Malta or any part of Malta and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subarticle, any agreement, decision or practice which:
(a) directly or indirectly fixes the purchase or selling price or other trading conditions; ..."
Cartelisation is probably the worst kind of economic crime possible within a market economy, as it literally involves the theft of large sums of money from consumers by means of collusion and market manipulation. It is nothing short of market abuse.
Competition Authority, please wake up and investigate.
A Daley
Jul 18th 2008, 12:15
So you accepted the money and life goes on as if nothing had happened!
The question remains: Did you or did you not have any information as to what the Government was about to do?
Liam Kelly
Jul 18th 2008, 12:06
Mr Bray,
Do we go on strike each time a new competitor enters our markets? Do we ask for handouts in order to maintain our market share? No.
Your argument is totally and utterly ridiculous and any shread of dignity which existed in the Hearse market have now well and truly gone. Shame on you all for this utter disgrace of a situation which you are totally reponsible for.
josette pace
Jul 18th 2008, 09:54
No wonder they changed their mind!!! and here we re praising our champion our dear minister.. and PLAEASE DONT TELL ME I VOTED LABOUR... i m not wishing i did cos its near to impossible for me to do so....but i just wish i didnt... hate our prime minister s attitude first and foremost ......followed by his ministers