GOVERNMENT senators on Friday used their slim majority to push through amendments to the Consumer Protection Act after Opposition legislators withdrew support when their reservations about the Bill were ignored.

The senators voted 10 to four resulting in the passage of the provision through the 21-member Senate. Ten senators were absent.

With the amendments, the Consumer Affairs Commission has been given greater powers, including the keeping of records, the investigation of breaches under the Act, as well as power to institute and carry on legal proceedings.

Where the commission’s mediation procedures fail, the Act gives powers to establish a Consumer Protection Tribunal to hear consumer-related matters in order to determine whether certain practices are in breach of the Act.

The tribunal will be able to call and examine witnesses; call for and examine documents requiring them to be submitted to the commission to be verified by affidavit; make orders relating to the strengthening of provisions regarding advertising and display of prices, the recovery of damages from a breach of warranty, and to generally increase the fines for contravention of provisions relevant to warranties. In addition, the tribunal will be able to ensure that a provider is allowed time to conduct verification of a complaint prior to the payment of a refund where there is a dispute.

The fairly placid debate turned contentious after Opposition senators began voicing discomfort with aspects of the provision which was eventually passed with seven amendments.

Opposition Senator Arthur Williams was the first to express reservations about several aspects of the Bill, while making it clear that he was in support of the intent of the legislation. He was uncomfortable with changes under the provision which ensure that not only providers inside Jamaica but those outside Jamaica who fail to issue a warranty or extend a manufacturers’ warranty in accordance with the Act would be guilty of an offence.

“The difficulty I have is where the manufacturer operates outside of Jamaica, that would place an unreasonable burden on operators in Jamaica,” Senator Williams said.

Opposition Senator Alexander Williams followed, noting that while it was quite laudable to create a tribunal for the hearing of everyday disputes that affect consumers, it would be better to increase the jurisdiction of existing small claims Courts and use them for this purpose.

His colleague, Opposition Senator Marlene Malahoo-Forte, argued at length that the “Bill requires further thinking”.

The Opposition senators were also of the view that the Act should expressly state that the tribunal should be an itinerant one, the fear being that it “would get bogged down”.

In the meantime, Opposition Senator Camina Johnson-Smith said the Office of Utilities Regulation and the Fair Trading Commission should also be reviewed, given the pending changes for the Consumer Affairs Commission.

Government Senator Mark Golding, however, pointed out that an amendment was not necessary to effect this since the Act made room for the tribunal to be able to sit in any part of Jamaica.

He went further to express impatience with some of the issues raised by the senators, calling them “all kinds of lengthy contributions and non-points”.

Their insistence that the provision be amended to reflect their concerns even saw Leader of Government Business Senator AJ Nicholson walking out of the chamber in a huff at one point.

Opposition senators in one last bid called for a divide on the third reading of the Bill, but were ribbed by Government Senator Lambert Brown who heckled them with “yuh want to vote against consumer protection? Shame”.

The justice minister, in opening the debate on the provision which he piloted, said the Bill served to amend the Consumer Protection Act to generally improve the efficiency of the Act and to strengthen the authority of the Consumer Affairs Commission in resolving consumer disputes.

The parent Act came into operation in June 2005 and provides for the promotion and protection of consumer interests as well as for the legal establishment of the commission as a statutory body.

Golding said, following an extensive review of the Act by the commission, the portfolio ministry (Industry, Investment and Commerce) and the Attorney General’s Chambers, it was felt that it required revision to address important policy issues.

Persons appearing as witnesses before the tribunal and who fail or refuse to answer a question without reasonable excuse will be guilty of an offence and could be fined up to $2 million, be imprisoned for up to two years, or face both fine and imprisonment.

Persons found guilty of giving false or misleading evidence could also be fined up to $2 million, spend two years in prison, or suffer both.

The Act will come into force on a day appointed by Industry Minister Anthony Hylton by notice in the Gazette.