KINGSTON, Jamaica — Opposition Senator Ramon Small-Ferguson has questioned why the Government has moved to reduce fines for breaches of certain provisions under the Jamaica Consumer and Competition Authority (JCCA) Act, 2026.

Once established, the authority will merge the functions of the Consumer Affairs Commission (CAC) and the Fair Trading Commission (FTC).

Minister of Industry, Investment and Commerce Senator Aubyn Hill, opened the debate on the JCCA Bill in the Senate on Friday.

Small-Ferguson raised his concerns during his contribution to the debate, arguing that penalties are intended to support compliance and help consumers obtain redress. He noted that the bill reduces certain maximum fines compared to those introduced under the Consumer Protection Act in 2012.

He pointed out that under Clause 29 of the bill, the maximum fine for refusing, without reasonable excuse, to answer a required question before the Tribunal — which will be established to hear cases — falls from $2 million to $500,000. For knowingly giving false or misleading evidence, the fine falls from $2 million to $1 million.

“Most concerning, the maximum fine for failing to comply with a Tribunal order falls from $2 million to $500,000, a reduction of 75 per cent,” he stated.

“I recognise that the bill does not reduce every fine. But these particular reductions deserve an explanation because they concern cooperation with proceedings and compliance with the resulting orders. The consequences for consumers are real,” he added.

Small-Ferguson cited a case reported by the CAC in 2021, in which a customer purchased a used vehicle for $5.4 million. A subsequent assessment found evidence of a heavy collision in Japan and an issue with the odometer reading. The Tribunal awarded the customer approximately $7.6 million, including more than $2.1 million for 846 days’ loss of use. The matter was brought before the Tribunal in August 2020, and the ruling was delivered in October 2021.

“That example shows how substantial the loss to a consumer can become. For someone who depends on a vehicle to get to work, take children to school or earn an income, losing its use has consequences well beyond the purchase price. Once a consumer obtains an order, the system must support prompt compliance,” he said.

He argued that a favourable decision offers limited relief if the complainant must then undertake another prolonged struggle to obtain the refund or compensation awarded.

“My question to the Minister is straightforward: why are we reducing these maximum fines, and what assessment supports the conclusion that the lower amounts will adequately deter non-compliance?” he said, addressing Senator Hill.

Noting that these penalties were introduced in 2012, Small-Ferguson said it would be reasonable to review whether they remain adequate today.

“It is harder to understand why we would substantially reduce them without a clear explanation. I also ask how a consumer will secure prompt compliance where an order is ignored. Penalising the offender and obtaining the remedy for the customer are distinct outcomes. The process must address both,” he said.

Small-Ferguson told the Upper House that supporting business investment and expecting businesses to honour lawful orders are entirely compatible.

“Businesses that meet their obligations should also have confidence that competitors cannot gain an advantage by frustrating legitimate consumer claims. I therefore urge the minister to reconsider these reductions, particularly the penalty for failing to comply with a Tribunal order. A consumer who has successfully pursued a complaint should be able to obtain the remedy awarded without further unnecessary delay and expense,” he said.