A motion moved by the Malta Labour Party regarding amendments to the euro changeover dual pricing display regulations legal notice was not approved by Parliament on Wednesday evening. The proposed changes included enforcement of dual pricing displayed on receipts, vending machines to show dual pricing, a period of prescription for retailers to step in line when they are found in fault of the regulations, and no ministerial discretion in awarding or waiving fines when a trader is found to be committing a contravention.
MLP’s main spokesperson for social solidarity Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, presenting the proposed changes, said that although there are strong legal provisions to aid the consumer, acknowledging the effort and hard work undertaken by enterprises, consumer protection during the euro changeover period was paramount.
“The consumer is always in a less favourable position than retailers. This bill implies that a court judgment regarding the abuse of the dual price display may be changed by the minister responsible,” she snapped angrily. “This is not a situation that should exist in a democratic country.”
Quoting an article explaining the legal notice written by Parliamentary Secretary in the Finance Ministry, Tonio Fenech, Dr Coleiro Preca questioned as to why there were such discrepancies between the article and the notice itself – the notice not providing for adequate legal tools to protect the consumer. She also scolded the fact that consumer organisations and the National Commission for Persons with Disability were not consulted in the writing up of the notice.
Further justifying her claim that consumers will be at their most vulnerable, the Labour MP cited a comparative study discussion paper from the University of Bonn about the social effects of the euro changeover in some eurozone countries. “The consumer’s perception is one of fear; this because of perceived inflation, the illusion that disposable income has decreased and the fact that individuals have to bear the cost burdens of the change alone.”
Ending her intervention, Dr Coleiro Preca pleaded that GRTU make it as easy as possible for consumers, again stressing that in no way was the Labour party naming traders, thieves.
Opposing MLP quite thoroughly, saying he had his doubts as to its intention in raising this debate, or for that matter its “U-turned” position on euro adoption, Edwin Vassallo, Parliamentary Secretary in the Competitiveness and Communications Ministry claimed, “I am more than convinced that the Labour party’s interest is not a national one, but one that will ride the wave of public opinion.”
Referring to the amendment regarding dual price display on receipts, which would mean that most retailers would have to change their cash registers, he said that the population cannot then live in a constant phase of transition.
The government’s aim is to empower traders so as they may take on the challenge of a new currency, with tough enough laws in place for the protection of both the consumer and the retailer.
Mr Vassallo mentioned more than four fines in the region of Lm700, continued by daily fines in the region of Lm50 imposed until the retailer ratifies the situation, if the dual price display or calculation is contrary to regulations.
“How can you then say that the consumer is not being protected?” Mr Vassallo retorted.
He then mentioned the FAIR initiative, an educational tool that is not only protecting the consumer but is also making the retailer take on the responsibility of the new currency. He assured that no law protecting the consumer will be void once euro adoption takes effect, that regulations are practical and flexible, and will ensure no increase in the standard of living.
Upon taking the floor, Mr Fenech was positive about the opposition’s initiative to speak about the euro, though he did say that they should have stuck to the time for consultation, had they anything to say about the legal notice. He explained as to why no time-frame was stipulated for traders at fault to ratify their situation, saying that infringement criteria were numerous.
Time to make amends would therefore vary considerably, so it is going to be left up to the euro observer to issue “time-frame” notices. The NECC will also be publishing a guideline regarding infringement criteria, he continued.
Mr Fenech went on to point out that prior to issuing the legal notice, a study of eurozone countries who fared well with very little inflation in the changeover period was conducted, and the government went so far as to better the provisions contained within these notices, so exemptions from dual price displaying were next to nothing.
He defended the fact that the consumers’ associations and the National Commission for Persons’ with Disability were involved in consultations with the NECC, save that the consumers’ association chose to say nothing, and is only now declaring its position against. Regarding the change in cash registers, the parliamentary secretary said that it would increase the financial burden on the retailer, so the government shall be providing conversion tables and specialised calculators, so as they may still be able to provide the dual price display service, in some way.
Fiscal benefits were also being offered to those who did want to change their cash register, he continued. “Let us not instill fear in consumers,” Mr Fenech cautioned, “the way you (MLP) are postulating it, is that retailers are going to defraud their customers. Traders are more than aware that if the consumer loses confidence, then they themselves are going to suffer.”
Concluding the debate, Charles Mangion, MLP’s main spokesperson for Parliamentary, Financial and Economic Affairs, expounded upon the fact that though there might be many regulations and laws in place, if there was not enforcement thereof, “nobody will be brought to justice” – taking as an example the environmental laws on dumping and littering.
If the euro changeover regulations are treated in the same way, then no form of consumer protection will be undertaken, he said. He also queried about the government’s claim of no inflation; it had been promised that the price of medicines would decrease as would the cost of living – not only has this not taken effect, but they have inversely increased.
As for the cash registers issue, Dr Mangion admitted that the dual price display period was short, but felt that it was something the country needed in its particular situation, and a cost that should be burdened by the government. “We spend millions in flights and subsistence costs, consultants and posh cars – why not spend it to protect consumers?” he exclaimed.
He wound up by suggesting that consultation with consumer organisations should be enforced by law, and that should the minister have the power of veto with regards to court decisions on infringement in euro changeover dual regulations, then consumer protection would not be ensured, and it should thus be left up to the courts to decide.
The opposition motion was defeated after a division.