Labour MP Owen Bonnici told Parliament on Tuesday that bringing the Consumer Affairs Act in line with EU directives would give more rights to consumers and broaden the exceptional circumstances where consumers could expect more understanding. However, there was still room for improvement because there were instances where consumers find themselves in situations they had no control over.

He mentioned the case of a person who heard that if he subscribed to a particular internet company, he would be given unlimited access. After spending a week in Sicily, making use of the internet facilities, he was faced with a bill amounting to thousands of euros. The man claimed he was not aware that roaming fees would cost him so much.

In another case, two persons on social security benefits had been asked to pay €350 for the re-installation of their electricity supply. Dr Bonnici had asked Infrastructure Minister Austin Gatt to look into this.

Dr Gatt told him that this was a social issue and he should refer the case to the minister considered, adding that the Water Services Corporation did not practice a social policy. Dr Bonnici said an MP could never take such a stance and he appealed to the government to take a social perspective in all its dealings with the citizens.

Under Maltese Law, he said, it was rare for the courts to grant moral damages and he called for a revision of the system.

An examination of consumer tribunal sentences showed that seven out of 10 cases were awarded in favour of the consumer. This, however, could not be considered as protecting the consumer as very often there weren't the tools to give the consumers the redress they deserved.

As an example he said that if a consumer had a wedding dress damaged at a dry cleaners', at the tribunal stage, tests had to be carried out to ascertain that the damage was not there before the dress was taken to the laundry. This analysis costs around Lm200, when the consumer was suing for Lm50. He said this was not the way to go about things.

The consumer association was made up of volunteers. While this was praiseworthy, their input was limited. There should be associations, to help consumers in their legal battles.

There was nowhere to check whether a car was below EU standards. VRT testing could not grant a comprehensive result in such cases. This was where Malta had to improve.

On an EU level, there were six headings when it came to a policy for consumer rights, the first being the strategy and programmes to incentivise consumer protection.

The question of safety was a specialisation in itself, which offered many opportunities of work for Maltese youths.

Consumer rights such as those related to shopping online, unfair practices and timeshare agreements, needed a group of people doing a class action. This was what Labour was going to do when it came to the car registration tax.

Finally there was empowerment of consumers, which was done by informing and educating the people.

Referring to information from Eurobarometer surveys on what the Maltese think about the global economic crisis, Dr Bonnici said it resulted that Malta was among one of the top countries when it came to overseas shopping. This implied that consumers were not satisfied with what was offered locally.

The authorities should ensure that prices were not cheaper abroad. There was the issue that sometimes the Maltese were not allowed to buy from foreign countries as the companies did not deliver to Malta. This was not fair, and cross border business, which was encouraged by the EU, was being hindered. The law had to tackle this.

Results of a survey last October showed that 43 per cent of the respondents did not feel protected by the authorities. Whereas people abroad believed in voluntary consumer associations, this was not the case in Malta.

Maltese people believe in the government authorities. How could one pacify the people when the Malta Resource was still revising utility tariffs?

In a survey last month, consumers were asked whether they felt that keeping the Maltese lira might have helped Malta weather the economic crisis. Thirty-three per cent had replied in the affirmative. This meant a majority believed that the euro put Malta in a better state to deal with crises and this reflected the political consensus.

Only 16 per cent said it would be better if Malta were not an EU. In the UK, an astonishing 41 per cent believed they would have been better off if they were not EU members, whereas 46 per cent believed otherwise. This was the highest recorded percentage.

Many Maltese had agreed that the euro had been strong enough to mitigate the negative effects of the financial crisis.

People had been asked which of the EU, the G8, the US, the local government or the International Monetary Fund was best suited to beat the economic crisis. It was clear that the most effective actor in all member states was perceived to be the G8, not the EU. Malta was in the last rung of the ladder of the countries that believed this.

Dr Bonnici said this finding in favour of the G8 hurt because it was unacceptable that a restricted group of eight countries held the key to financial security for Europeans. The Maltese believed that unity brought strength. It was not right to be a rebel without a cause, but dogged determination to hold the truth could in fact change things around.

The consumer had now become the lynchpin of the free market and of the international debate. Dr Bonnici appealed to the government not to be taken in by the idea of the market being supreme.

Such a debate should not be on the level of legislation, but the way to really examine the role of the consumer should give a better idea of the way forward.

A sector directly hit by consumerism was youth, who should be in the forefront to proclaim what was right and what differences existed on what, concluded Dr Bonnici.

Noel Farrugia (PL) said the opposition was of the idea that progressive ideas regarding consumers' rights were the best to show the way forward.

There were some points in the Bill that called for deeper analysis. Daily consumption should bring back to mind the declarations of the G20 but also common sense. Food was the backbone of life and the enjoyment thereof, and should therefore be closely considered.

Consumers, for example, often did not distinguish between prime steer, bull or cow, but there were important differences in the genetics of all three. The beef of the bull, which did not bear offspring, was therefore accorded a greater grade. The consumers' rights called for a breakthrough in the research of such matters, because today common sense prevailed over science.

Scientists, both believers and non-believers, held that water was life. Consumers, too, believed that healthy eating was a prerequisite for good health and lack of illness. But EU scientists had now decided to feed cows a more varied range of foodstuffs than they had hitherto been used to. In 1949, Nazi scientists had been following scientific analysis aimed at making the Germans a purer race and mutating the Jewish race. This had been identified as the source of mad cow disease because of the changes in cattle feed.

Similarly, patients not given the best kind of food would either not be cured or take a long time getting there.

Production of fresh meat in Malta had been decreasing, and substituted by importation. But were the imports of the same quality as the local product? Foreign exporters to Malta had been saying that they were now exporting to Malta more cow than other kinds of beef. And in many instances, not even the butcher could tell the difference.