Editorial

The message that was repeatedly hammered home at the recent debate in Parliament on a Bill amending consumer protection laws was that Malta has still a lot of ground to cover in this area. And so say all of us. True, the process started late and it was clearly European Union membership prospects that prompted legislation on consumer affairs and the myriad of structures that go with it. Alas, the all important culture change that will see businesses and service providers being more responsive to consumer care, and consumers standing up for their rights, has still, sadly, not come about. This was an area where the government could have taken the lead, but failed and, it must also be said, the public has not pressed hard enough - in terms of widespread support - for a well-oiled consumer association either.

Some corporations and government departments did introduce consumer charters and promise quality service within specific timeframes, but the approach was sporadic and other sections of the public service remained fossilised in the practices of the past, even protected by legislation from actions for damages caused by their poor service.

That is changing now, albeit slowly. Laws are being updated, protection to government agencies is being lifted and the courts too have taken some milestone decisions that support the level of service the people expect from the government and local councils. But does it have to be legislation and court action to push change forward?

The current situation is as problematic in the private sector as it is in the public. Far too many businesses still see customer care as another term for higher costs or the area that first gets the chop when costs have to be trimmed.

Successful companies know that customer care is an investment rather than a cost. It is in building a customer relationship based on quality, service and trust that business can grow.

But enforcement of consumer protection laws is as important to them as it is to consumers. Effective enforcement of consumer laws, such as those on product safety or misleading advertising, ensures that they can conduct their business on a level playing field. Lack of enforcement means unfair competition. Standards drop, and the consumer ultimately suffers.

Yet, to focus on a point raised earlier, perhaps part of the blame for the weak customer care mentality in Malta rests with consumers themselves. Grumbling about poor service but doing nothing about it has meant that the consumers' lobby is practically non-existent or far too weak.

Why do consumers not defend their patch? Could it be a perception that theirs would be a cry in the wilderness?

The controversy on exclusive rights for sports programme transmissions was a clear demonstration that authorities which have a role in consumer protection are slow to react and slow to decide. The issue over medicine prices also revealed poor market surveillance, to the extent that the government is now taking it upon itself to investigate the situation.

There have also been justified complaints of poor enforcement of decisions by the Consumer Affairs Tribunal.

There is clearly a need for a re-assessment of the current consumer protection mechanism. This country has too many generals and too few troops to fight abuse of consumer rights. Fresh strategies need to be drawn up to consolidate existing mechanisms into a few well led and well resourced structures that can be more responsive to the needs of the market and the people.

It will only be when action is seen to be taken that a consumer protection mentality will really take off.