Labour MP Gino Cauchi has expressed fears that the new competition and consumers affairs authority would end up in a labyrinth.
Speaking during the debate in second reading of the Bill introducing the authority, Mr Cauchi criticized its structure. He questioned whether certain applications were being tailormade to fit certain earmarked candidates.
He also argued that two directorates – one on consumer protection and the other focused on free market – would have conflicting views and one should amend these aspects now.
Earlier, Mr Cauchi said that while a Maltese was appointed as European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, there was no authority protecting consumers in Malta.
The Labour Party had organised a conference in 2009 on the increase of the cost of living, where one of the proposed measures was to set up a consumer authority. Yet, this was only being discussed by the government two years later.
When the government increased fuel and gas prices, shopkeepers argued that they had to pass the burden onto the consumers. Nevertheless, the government did not backtrack to safeguard the consumer.
Mr Cauchi said that the practice of online purchasing was a reality. However, the irony was that if a dissatisfied customer with a locally-bought item had to go through a lengthy process to have a redress, a similar buyer, unsatisfied with a product purchased through the Internet, was entitled to return it within a few days and receive reimbursement within days.
It was ironic that the Broadcasting Authority obliged stations to insert a cooling-off period in teleshopping while there was no authority protecting consumers.
The Bill contained several loopholes. Was this intended? Mr Cauchi asked. Citizens required true and immediate protection. However, the way the Bill was drafted, such authority would probably follow the same footsteps of other inefficient authorities. It could easily end up in a situation similar to Mepa’s, which was a disaster as far as consumers were concerned. The one-stop-shop concept was not included.
Mr Cauchi said that the elderly had to pay hefty prices for medicine. Who was protecting them?
Turning on cable broadcasting, the two companies had wanted their subscribers to pay in advance for packages. But then they stopped transmitting certain channels. And Communications Minister Austin Gatt had contended that the Malta Consumers Authority did not have any legal authority to enforce consumer protection.
Auguring that the new consumer authority would have the necessary clout to enforce consumer protection, Mr Cauchi suggested it should take the same stand when dealing with governmental departments and the private sector.
He criticised the way Arms Ltd was set up and the way it dealt with consumers. Enemalta’s power cuts had also caused damages to consumers.
Michael Falzon (PL) said that although the Bill was a step forward it could be fine-tuned to include the creation of a one-stop shop, more affective power to the new authority and easy procedures through which consumers could bring forward their complaints. Furthermore there needed to be more streamlining.
Dr Falzon pointed out that the Bill did refer to the prices of medicines. The government was still in time to include these and ensure that the new authority’s remit include the price control of medicines.
Arms Ltd and Mepa had failed to protect consumers. The same could be said for governmental departments and authorities, especially with regards to health services where citizens were not being given the service they deserved.
Concluding, Dr Falzon said the Bill needed to be clearer on issues such as that of chairman for the new authority. He hoped the authority would be free from political strings and run by professional people.