Finance Minister Tonio Fenech yesterday told Parliament that the government could not just go ahead and close the gambling shops that were mushrooming all over the country. It was currently revising Maltese legislation to build a better and stronger framework, and nobody and nothing would be tolerated if they did not abide by the forthcoming legislation.

He pointed out that some of the first shops had opened under a trading licence, and they had started to bring in certain gambling machines that were not so described in current legislation because they did not give back money. When the police had started to take steps against these shops, the accused kept being freed on this technical shortcoming.

Other shops had opened under a Mepa classification without consultation with the gaming authority. This, too, had been stopped.

Winding up the debate on the second reading of the Consumer Affairs (Amendment Bill), Minister Fenech said that it had touched on many more aspects than envisioned in the Bill, even politically.

It was more than apparent that the opposition was largely in agreement with the Bill. The government was intent on a much stronger framework in favour of the consumer, there still being certain anomalies that called for extensive revision to ensure that competition was fair and that the consumer would have more protection especially where there was no competition.

Opposition speakers had acknowledged that former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami's top priority had not been the market, but the market with a social conscience. It should not hurt the citizen even while businesses went after justifiable profits, so that everybody could share in the national cake. The administration should not be just a political administrator, but also see that wealth was justly distributed.

Opposition speakers had touched on several aspects of competition, most of which the government had already acted on to ensure protection of the consumer. The higher water and electricity tariffs did not mean that the government was impinging on consumers' rights. If Enemalta did not make ends meet, the consumer would be among the first to suffer.

Mr Fenech said the consumer had a right to be assured that what he was being charged was fair, with those hardest hit being helped as necessary. It was not right to chastise everybody without helping anybody.

He had already given the government's views, in previous debates, on the VAT charged on the registration of vehicles. It was obvious that the opposition had tried to take a ride on the back of the present debate. But before the latest general elections Labour had "forgotten" to include in its manifesto the pledge to remove VAT from vehicle registration tax.

Had the opposition forgotten that 1996-98 had been the period when most self-employed had given up? Typically, it had always played for opportunism, and the electorate had refuted its promises.

Why was the opposition still saying that Malta had joined the eurozone too early? This was exactly what had saved Malta from more dire consequences in the current world financial crisis. Much greater and financially-stronger countries had been brought to their knees.

The existence of the Central Bank was a prerequisite for membership of the eurozone and the European Central Bank. The opposition was clearly not yet convinced of Malta's membership of the EU and the eurozone.

Mr Fenech said the mushrooming of gambling shops and the government's apparent reluctance to act on them was morally disquieting, but it needed to be looked at in its full complexity.

It could not be refuted that the Maltese people liked to gamble. Malta was the only country in the world where lotto had continued to be played even during the war. Gambling in Malta needed to be controlled to protect gamblers from falling into abuse and exacerbating social problems.

In effect, such gambling machines had existed long before the "modern" shops had mushroomed and created the furore. But really, nothing had changed from five years ago or before. The problem was that these shops were more in the public eye because they were being presented more attractively.

The government was making it clear that anybody owning such gambling shops would not have any precedent to base their business on.

It was important to realise that consumer protection was not just a matter of words, but of meaningful action, concluded Minister Fenech.