Abusers need to be 'named and shamed' MP insists

Labour MP Carmelo Abela said yesterday that "name and shame" needed to become more common in the area of consumer affairs.

"One should not shirk from naming those who do not shirk from providing a poor service," he said in Parliament.

Mr Abela was speaking during the debate on a Bill amending consumer affairs laws. The main purpose of the Bill is to bring about closer collaboration between national authorities involved in consumer affairs.

Mr Abela regretted that consumer rights awareness was well behind the norm in the EU. Consumer protection was a core component of the European Commission's policies. The commission's mission statement on consumer affairs underlined the importance of both sound legislation as well as other effective measures to protect the consumer. It also stressed the importance of consumer representation on decision-making bodies.

In Malta, however, the composition of the National euro changeover committee had a marked under-representation of consumers, despite the impact on consumers which this committee's decisions would have.

He would not deny that some progress had been made in raising consumer rights awareness in Malta, but the government clearly needed to boost this sector. Malta lacked consumer organisations and the few that existed were weak.

One could only hope that this Bill would really bring about closer collaboration among the various consumer protection organisations in Malta. But where did the loyalty of such national organisations lie, with consumers or the government?

Mr Abela referred to the transmission of World Cup games, saying the benefits of competition were not being realised in the television broadcasting sector. One could not allow market forces free rein in every sector. Private sector companies were there to make a profit and one would expect them to maximise their profits through all legal means. But the government had not done its duty as allowed by the law in this case.

The regulators involved in broadcasting had acted too slowly with regard to free-to-air transmissions of the matches. The law laid down that the finals of the World Cup should be free to air, but it now appeared there was a problem over the interpretation of the term "finals". In Malta the Broadcasting Authority had decided that the last eight matches should be free to air, whereas an EU spokesman had named all 68 World Cup matches as constituting the finals. This, certainly, would have been a more favourable interpretation for Maltese consumers.

Earlier in the debate, Silvio Parnis (MLP) said a major problem which consumers were facing was poor value for money and inflation.

Apart from the burden of the power surcharge, many consumers were also suffering a shortage of medicines, even medicines which were supposed to be provided by the health service. The people certainly expected better government services in return for their taxes.

Mr Parnis said insurance companies were far too often talking their way out of settling claims even when such claims were justified.

Certain advertising also tended to be misleading.

Opposition deputy leader Charles Mangion said that in a globalised market environment where mega-players were set to supply most services it was vital that the consumer was backed by official protection through regulators.

In Malta consumers felt vulnerable but unfortunately most people accepted the status quo.

One of the most negative aspects in Maltese society was the abusive consumption of alcohol by young people. But were these young people being protected, such as by the banning of alcohol advertising especially when children and adolescents were known to be watching TV?

The same could be said about advertising on gambling. Was there anybody in a position to direct and draw up regulations on the timing of such advertising?

Dr Mangion also referred to the price of medicines and the government's warning that it would impose price orders. It now appeared that the government would backtrack, in the face of a strong reaction by medicine importers. The ball was simply going from one side of the court to the other. Should not the regulator report to Parliament on what was really happening and why? It was wrong for medicines to be a major contributor to inflationary statistics. The total silence seemed to mean that nobody knew what they were doing or could do.

Other speakers will be reported tomorrow.