The government is once again in the process of liberalisation of the public passenger transport sector and consultations with stakeholders seemed to have been progressing in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and respect of the respective positions of the parties concerned.
Matters have been brought to a head and the plot has taken an unfortunate twist as a result of a legal mess created by the joint efforts of the Commission for Fair Trading (CFT) and the Malta Transport Authority (ADT) with the resultant licensing of three open-top buses to operate in the "unscheduled" sector. The operator concerned is now claiming the right to be issued with a license for another eight similar vehicles, to which the Office of Fair Competition seems to have given the green light. (Ruling Opens Doors for More Open-Top Buses, May 2).
There are another 40 or so pending applications for open-top buses in varying stages of decomposition (average age 35 years) currently following developments. Their approval would constitute an act of sheer madness and be downright unfair to current operators that have observed strict rules on replacement and importation of vehicles. The importation of coaches is currently restricted and replacement vehicles cannot be older than 10 years. The irony is that all this is taking place at a time when the government is in the process of imposing a vehicle life limitation of 28 years!
The controversial decision by the CFT, which in my view claimed powers certainly not intended for it to have and invaded the government's domain, combined with the total inability of the ADT to carry out its duty to "regulate", is beyond credibility and will have far-reaching undesirable consequences.
Operators in the unscheduled sector for years have had to put up with unfair competitive practices mainly by the Public Transport Association (buses) that enjoyed government subsidies ostensibly to carry out scheduled passenger transport services but were allowed to carry out unscheduled services with their subsidised vehicles, subsidised insurance, guaranteed annual revenue and so forth. This has led coach operators in the unscheduled sector to cry foul in Brussels, and the point that the distinction between scheduled and unscheduled passenger service vehicles should be made seems to have been driven home. This distinction is fundamental to any reform in the public passenger transport sector.
The CFT decision is discriminatory against current operators in the unscheduled sector and has threatened them with competition from about 50, 77-seat, 35-year-old bangers. These vehicles will claim the right to compete in the unscheduled sector alongside the 142 coaches, 404 minibuses and 280 white vans. So much for level playing fields!
The point is, why has the ADT not issued regulations for the licensing of this type of vehicle? Why have the rules applicable to the licensing of 53-seater coaches, particularly relating to age, not been modified to fit open-top buses? What will become of these vehicles once the ADT wakes up from its slumber and issues regulations that no doubt will see these vehicles off the road once again as being not up to standard? Will the ADT be faced with further claims for damages?
We have seen how unregulated betting shops have sprouted all over the island as a result of the relevant authority's inability to issue regulations. The same is set to happen in this sector, and once regulations are published eventually, as they will be, the number of open-top bus operators that would have had new expectations by then, would have increased and the problem exacerbated unnecessarily.
The issue now is how to make an egg out of an omelette.
Dr Hyzler is chairman and legal advisor of the Unscheduled Bus Service.