Opposition finance spokesman Charles Mangion said that the delay in concluding the investigative report on the issue of the BOV Property Fund did not lead to consumer confidence in local institutions.
Speaking during the second reading of the Bill setting up the Competition and Consumer Protection Authority, Dr Mangion said the report had to be concluded by the end of last year. In a parliamentary reply, Finance Minister Tonio Fenech had said it was to be concluded soon but did not specify a date.
Dr Mangion asked what type of quality in consumer protection this was. The UK authorities had taken immediate action in a similar circumstance and Barclays Bank had to pay a large fine and £60 million in compensation to investors.
He conceded that there was a market risk but emphasised that more delays eroded consumer confidence.
Turning to the Bill, he said its main objective was to create fair competition while protecting consumers. However, many regulatory bodies failed to give proper protection to consumer. A case in point was the present situation where football fans had to subscribe to both GO and Melita cable networks because the Malta Communications Authority had not yet decided the matter.
Dr Mangion also referred to the statement issued by the Malta Resources Authority on the hike in gas prices where it gave the impression that the two liquid gas providers would operate at a loss by selling their products at a lower rate than it had proposed.
No company would operate at a loss considering also that in Cyprus and Luxemburg, where wages were higher, gas prices were lower. This showed that the MRA had not checked these companies’ operative costs.
The country had to wait for three years for the government to partially intervene on the retail price of medicines. There was no form of regulation to curtail these abuses.
In presenting the Bill before Parliament the government had admitted that many regulatory bodies costing the tax payer about €180 million a year and other entities had failed to deliver on consumer protection. He asked why food and product safety did not fall under the responsibility of the national authority being set up. This would lead to overlapping and competition between different ministries and ran contrary to the one-stop shop principle. He feared that setting up an authority with a top heavy administration might lead to more bureaucracy and less efficiency. He also asked on how the fair competition directorate would function while avoiding any overlap with any other directorate within the same Authority.
Dr Mangion referred to the Budget speech where the Finance Minister had declared that a college of regulators would be set up. He asked whether any analysis had been conducted on how competitiveness could be strengthened while reducing bureaucracy and enhancing economic growth.
He concluded that he had reservations on whether the aims and objectives of the Bill would be reached through present institutions and entities which were becoming more bureaucratic and less efficient.
Helena Dalli (PL) said that all too often after-sales service was in direct contrast with the cajoling of potential customers before a sale. Many salespersons evidently needed additional training in the way they did their job after a sale.
The small size of the Maltese market did not help vis-à-vis the quality of imported goods, as distinct from the better quality of products that could be commanded by importers into much larger markets.
The internet had made wide inroads into the availability of goods from overseas, although it was not very advisable to buy medicines on the web. Some people had started making trips to Sicily and in the process buying loads of cheaper medicines from the neighbouring island.
Books, on the other hand, made a good buy on the internet because of the much better prices available.
Consumers were being hard-hit by poorly-controlled cartels and monopolies, such as Enemalta Corporation, where they had to foot the bill for gross inefficiencies in management. The consumer needed protection in practice, rather than on paper and in speeches.
Even the costs of corruption, scantily concealed, had to be made good by consumers.
Consumers also needed to be protected from abusive agreements between producers and retailers on exclusive marketing. The Consumer Affairs Authority being set up by the Bill would be hard-put to ensure better deals for the consumer. One aspect that should actively be pursued should be the recruitment of professionals in consumer affairs, without looking at their political beliefs. This would start the authority off on the right foot.
The government should be the first and major entity to set an example by treating consumers efficiently and effectively.
Setting up a new authority should not be just a way of shifting responsibility for an unsolved problem, forking out much larger amounts in emoluments. This would only lumber the people with increased costs while hardly making any difference to a bad situation.
The voluminous Bill included a huge amount of bureaucracy, which would not necessarily make for a fair deal for consumers seeking redress. Too much emphasis was being made on structures, rather than consumer protection.