Category: Archive – 2011

GRTU is disappointed at the outcome of the Parliament committee vote on 1^st February on the Consumer Rights Directive. The Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee has missed an opportunity to remove the obstacles which hinder the internal market for businesses and consumers. The original Commission proposal was intended to provide more confidence in the internal market.

However, as amended in IMCO, it will increase legal fragmentation, creating more market barriers and extra compliance costs, and so undermining business activities across Europe and especially e-business.

GRTU has consistently supported full harmonisation of those consumer rights which are essential to ensuring higher consumer confidence in the internal market. The Commission aimed to achieve this by establishing a more harmonised legal framework for consumer contracts while ensuring a high common level of consumer protection.  However, in a large number of areas, this proved complex and impossible.

The Council, being unable to agree on full targeted harmonisation, took a general approach and deleted two controversial chapters: although the resulting package was not perfect, it at least provided clarity.

The Parliament committee vote, however, by adopting minimum harmonised provisions gives Member States the option to create different levels of consumer protection legislation across Europe. In our view this is entirely the wrong approach: better to leave the status quo in place than to impose confusion.

As part of the EU's action to tackle bottlenecks in the Single Market and to boost growth, the European Commission carried out a public consultation on bringing more coherence to contract laws in Europe (IP/10/872) – the rules that apply to businesses and consumers buying and selling goods or services. The goal is to make it easier and less costly for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to do business abroad and to enable consumers to reap the full benefit of the Single Market while maintaining or improving their protection.

"I want both consumers and businesses to benefit fully from our Single Market, without having to navigate a legal maze when buying and selling in another EU country," said Vice-President Viviane Reding, the EU's Justice Commissioner.

Contracts are the essential tool for establishing the terms and conditions of any transaction, either between two businesses or between a business and a consumer. Different rules on contracts complicate cross-border trade. The parties have to find out which law applies and what exactly it means and have to adjust their agreements accordingly. This leads to additional transaction costs for translation and legal advice. Businesses, especially SMEs which make up 99% of the EU's companies, can be deterred from extending their activities to other Member States and often refuse to serve customers there. The lack of competition harms consumers who would often find a better deal buying abroad, particularly on the internet.

On 1 July 2010, the Commission launched a public consultation on different ways to make contract law more coherent. The Commission's Green Paper put forward a range of different policy options from the publication of (non-binding) model contract rules to the creation of a full-fledged European Civil Code, replacing all national rules on contracts.

The Commission will present a follow-up measure to the consultation in the fourth quarter of 2011 on the basis of the public consultation's results and following a thorough impact assessment.

Background

Under the Europe 2020 strategy – launched on 3 March 2010 (IP/10/225) – the Commission is currently tackling bottlenecks in the Single Market to drive economic recovery. The policy options presented in the Green Paper on contract law could help to achieve this strategy. Businesses selling to consumers (B2C) could realise synergy gains by using only one contract and the same IT platform across many Member States. For business to business (B2B) transactions it could lead to overcoming the "lack of trust" factor by putting parties on an equal footing, and achieving cost savings from the reduced need to negotiate applicable law. Consumers would also win by gaining access to a wider range of products and lower prices.

On 12 May, the Commission convened an expert group to transform the so-called "Draft Common Frame of Reference" – a first draft for a European contract law developed by academics over the past years under the EU's Research Programme – into a simple, user-friendly workable solution adapted to the needs of consumers and the reality of the business environment (IP/10/595). The group, which is composed of legal experts and practitioners from all over Europe, is currently meeting once a month in Brussels. The Commission has also convened representatives from European umbrella organisations of industry, retailers, consumers and legal practitioners to discuss the work of the experts as it develops. Upstream involvement of representatives is intended to provide greater opportunity for stakeholder input and to ensure a user-friendly solution.

The public consultation (which closes at midnight today) has been longer than usual to ensure as wide as possible participation in the policy discussion.

For more information

Green Paper on policy options for progress towards a European Contract Law for consumers and businesses:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/news_consulting_0052_en.htm

The Malta Chamber of Small and Meduim Enterprises, GRTU, set up Green MT with the aim of aiding Small and Meduim Sized Enterprises to oblige to their new environmental legislation. Accordingly Packaging and Waste Packaging has become an extended producer's responsability since March 01, 2007 in Malta through legal Notice 277 of 2006.

Tremendous efforts have been made by GRTU and its National Executive Council to put in place the related legislation and accompanying legislation which relates to exemptions from Eco Contribution. As always stated, Eco Contribution continues to be the most haphazard and crudest tax ever introduced to the business community in Malta.

At the time of writing, a number of producers, 570, (companies or individual traders who place packaging waste on the market on a first -time basis for commercial purposes) have taken related steps to come in line with Legal Notice 277 of 2006. This article is directed towards those who have as yet not taken up their responsability in respect to this legislation. Whilst GRTU is duty bound to advice both its members and the remaining business community that they have a responsibility towards the environment and also their own businesses.

Those ‘producers' who are not members of an Authorised Waste Packaging Scheme are risking penalties in a number of ways very shortly unless they come in line. If you are reading this article today and as a producer you are still not compliant with the law, we urge you to come forward now and take immediate steps to register with Green MT so that we can provide all related information in relation to this legislation.

GRTU has this week submitted its views on the system of accreditation. It is the view of GRTU that an accreditation system be set up to raise standards in Occupational Health and Safety in Malta. GRTU believes strongly that injury at work has serious repercussions for business not only in direct costs but also in indirect costs. It is with this view that accidents at work should be avoided as much as possible and therefore it is supporting the setting up of an accreditation system in Malta.

The certification should cover all levels and depths of competence relevant to occupational health and safety and any proposals should therefore be well discussed with the relevant bodies such as industry associations. It is important that before defining competence in any specific area such as that of the physician or hygienist, persons operating in these areas are asked to express their views on the matter thus ensuring civil dialogue as much as possible. Also these people will have first hand views about what constitutes or what does not constitute competence in their respective fields.

The accreditation system should not be unique to Malta but should be as close to what is used in other countries. This in view that Malta should try to make it simpler for Maltese workers to seek work in other European countries (worker mobility of competent persons). The system as proposed by GRTU should feature parts of other countries' systems. This said, it is crucial to keep in mind the type of employer that operates in Malta having many generalist rather than specialist businesses. Example in the woodworking industry most employers work with a variety of woods and there are no known employers that use only one particular type of wood. Hence the competent person giving advice in such case should have a broad knowledge of the risks of various kinds of wood rather than deep knowledge of risks associated with one kind.

The system of accreditation should be seen as a process, that is, a system that develops over time. It is the view of GRTU that the system should start on a voluntary basis and should not tightly assess and certify. However it should develop over time with the view that assessment and certification would become more thorough as it progresses.

GRTU feels that the system should not be the only system in Malta (no monopoly in the system). Competent persons accredited in Europe should be allowed to work in Malta even though they are not accredited by the Maltese system. Also there should be room to allow for the setting up of other (not one) accreditation bodies all falling under the supervision and regulation of OHSA authority.

This means that if in the future, the industry association shows an interest in becoming an accreditation body for the members of that industry, there should be nothing to stop this from happening. This will strengthen the purpose of industry associations.

The cost of the accreditation system should be borne by the applicant and the employer. It should not be an added cost on the state. Costs should be closely monitored by the regulator to ensure that the system works efficiently and effectively. It is the view of GRTU that no unnecessarily costs should be imposed on the employer. In this context competent persons can also be considered as possibly self employed persons and hence the GRTU feels that competent people should not be unnecessarily burdened with costs of a system that runs inefficiently. The first accreditation board should include all stakeholders including at least one person from OHSA, one person from the employers, one person representing the competent persons and one person representing the employees. It is also recommended that one foreign expert with experience in the setting up of accreditation systems be brought on board.

While accreditation systems ensure that standards are raised, it is important that no bottle necks are created in the system. This is why it is recommended that there is a system for more than one body offering accreditation to competent persons.  It should also be the intention of the system to raise the standards of competent people over time by providing support.

There is another key question relating to the skills and levels required of competent persons. The competent person must have a basic education and some health and safety training. The health and safety training could have been one of the modules studied in a tertiary programme of studies. There should be a system for CPD and a code of ethics.  However the CPD and the code of ethics should if possible fall within the remit of an association of competent persons not within the remit of the accreditation. If such an association does not exist OHSA should try to help in its setting up. At this stage membership of a foreign professional association should not be considered because of the costs involved in the membership. It must be remembered that the costs of the competent person will undoubtedly be transferred to the employer recruiting the services and it is the view of GRTU that costs are kept to a bare minimum.

Each accreditation body should set up its own procedure for certification. It should also be responsible for organising its own set of procedures. In the UK for instance, each accreditation body adopts its own system and if the system is transparent and well documented there should be no difficulty for the system to work smoothly.

The Authority should set up minimum standards for accreditation bodies to follow including quality management, records and inspection reports. Each body should offer an appeals procedure.

In a letter earlier on this week addressed to  Hon Joseph Muscat, Leader of the Opposition, GRTU Malta Chamber of SMEs expressed its concerns about comments made by him, stating that he would be ready to reinstate the Monti Hawkers in Merchants Street should he become elected as Prime Minister in the next elections.

GRTU has been recognized as an important stakeholder on this issue, under all governments since 1948. After consulting its members in Valletta more especially in Merchants Street and following analysis, GRTU recommended that they should individually and as a group raise their comments directly with Hon Joseph Muscat, given that the issue has now gone to a political level and that a meeting is scheduled for the Valletta Business Community to meet the Leader of Opposition in the coming days.

GRTU, as a representative of the majority of shops and businesses in Merchants Street, adviced Hon Joseph Muscat to keep in mind and protect the wellbeing of both the Monti Hawkers and the Business Community who have invested heavily to promote and upgrade their businesses and the street itself.

The Inspection of Lifts Regulations (ILR) of 2007, Legal Notice 231 of 2007, are national regulations setting out procedures for the registration and periodic inspection of lifts to ensure a high level of safety of both new and old lifts in Malta. The proposed ILR 2011 will revoke and replace ILR 2007 with the main aim of simplification and clarification on the most common practical issues raised by all stakeholders since the inception of ILR 2007.

The most significant changes being proposed are:

• The definition of "lift" under ILR has now been fully and clearly linked to the definition of "lift" under the Lifts Regulations, 2002 (LN 370/2002), including any exclusions. This means that only lifts falling under the Lifts Regulations, 2002, will now also fall under ILR;
• A new section specifically on market surveillance has been introduced, to tackle cases of non-conforming lifts.

The other changes are explained hereunder, where you are invited to add any comments you may have.

Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact David Pulis on . Feedback is to be sent by 18^th February 2011.

Background information

Various European Regulations and Directives, transposed into national legislation, require Member States to appoint a body or bodies responsible for receiving information on chemicals, detergents, biocides, plant protection products and cosmetics, including information on the chemical composition of such products, and for making such information available in cases of suspected poisonings. This means that this appointed body must have data on these types of products.

According to Article 45 of the CLP regulation "Member States shall appoint a body or bodies responsible for receiving information" including "the chemical composition of mixtures placed on the market and classified as hazardous on the basis of their health or physical effects". All this information shall be kept at the disposal of the appointed body.

This matter was also brought up during the project, supported by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), concerning the "National Chemicals Management Profile Development and National Priority Setting in Malta". The National Profile raised two important issues: the need of data collection on chemical products, including fertilizers, where currently no information is available; and the need of establishing a poisons centre. According to the WHO, Malta is one of the four EU Member States that does not have a poison centre. The Medicines and Poisons Information Service, at Mater Dei Hospital (MDH), is providing a similar service to that offered by a poison centre, however, various important factors that enable the proper functioning of a poison centre are missing. One of these factors is the availability and accessibility to the right information. To be able to answer enquiries, the poisons information service needs to maintain a comprehensive collection of information about chemicals, pharmaceuticals, products, plants and venomous animals. It also needs to develop treatment protocols and guidelines in order to ensure that the information and advice given is consistent. Lacking a readily available source would mean losing precious time in trying to identify the contents of the product and this can have fatal consequences.

Moreover, when taking into consideration clinical toxicology, according to a report which was published as a result of the recommendations proposed by means of the UNITAR project, for years 2003 to 2007 an average of 174 patients, with an admission related to toxicology, were registered in the Hospital Activity Analysis Database of St. Luke's and Mater Dei Hospitals. It is estimated that the real figure is 250 patients a year, considering that it is estimated that data used captured 70% of the admissions only. For years 2002 to 2007 an average of 13 patients died a death related to toxicology. With this in mind it is of great importance to develop a system whereby data concerning chemical products is made readily accessible so that local hospitals can be a step ahead when dealing with chemical incidents.

Being the competent authority for the regulations concerning chemicals, detergents, pesticides and cosmetics, the Malta Standards Authority (MSA) is proposing to introduce a notification system of the products that are being placed on the market, including chemicals, cosmetics, detergents, fertilizers, plant protection products and biocides. Information on these products shall be submitted to the MSA and the latter shall keep this data at its disposal.

This notification mechanism is similar to the data collection system employed in several other EU Member States, such as Italy, Germany, Belgium and France where they all have established national databases on products and composition.

The person responsible for placing the product on the market shall send to the MSA information related to the full chemical composition, intended uses, type of use and general characteristics of the product. The submission of the data shall be made electronically so as to facilitate the process both for the notifier and the MSA. The responsible person shall also upload a copy of the label of the product and its safety data sheet. Since the safety data sheets are only for professional use and not for domestic use mixtures, the information therein on non-dangerous components is often lacking. Indeed in the database the chemical name for the dangerous components and the chemical family name for the non-dangerous components are required. This notification system shall also apply to the products found already on the market. The notification of products is to be staggered over a period of time. This one-time  notification system shall be free-of-charge.

By having this data bank, the MSA can contribute to the Medicines and Poisons Information Section, at MDH, by allowing access to the information for health prevention purposes and for toxicological emergencies. MSA shall guarantee the industry the necessary confidentiality of the information stored in the archive, hence the Medicines and Poisons Information at MDH, who will have access to the archive, shall ensure an acceptable level of confidentiality as well. The MSA may eventually provide the information to other authorities/departments for their institutional tasks upon request.

Scope

The proposed legal notice is necessary to appoint MSA as the body responsible for receiving information, including the chemical composition of the products placed on the market, which is a current requirement.

This Legal Notice shall apply as soon as possible. After the present legal notice will come into force, the products which are placed on the Maltese market for the first time shall become notified within 30 days as from the date of introduction into the Maltese market.

Due to the expected large number of products that shall become notified, products placed on the market before the date of entry into force of the present legal notice, shall be notified within a period of time as established by the proposed regulations.

In view of the above kindly submit any comments by mail by Monday 21^st March 2011.

Solution for EEE producers to join a Waste packaging authorised scheme – Green MT has formally presented 65 applications for Eco Contribution Exemptions to the Approving Body for the year 2011. The applicants place on  the market just over 12, 000 tons of packaging waste and plastic and glass make up most of their packaging waste placed in the market.

By close of business on Friday 28th January 2011, Green MT had reached 212 members. The number will continue to rise as mose who do not register with an Authorised Scheme and pay their financial dues will face penalties  very shortly.

Green MT continues to operate a logistical collection of packaging waste from 41 Local Councils and also recoveries from companies and traders who join the Scheme. It is imperative that more Waste Packaging Producers take up their responsibility, firstly, to avoid any related penalties up and coming shortly, and also to be able to be part of a fair and level playing field in the market related to their respective sector. Those producers who continue to ‘free ride' the system will shortly have to face penalties which will not be to their liking, but it is not fair for a few hundred producers to bear the brunt of so many who place packaging waste on the market.

Authorised Waste Packaging Schemes had just over 390 members as at 2010 , end of year. All these 390 members placed approximately just over 20,000 tons of packaging waste in the market, thus contributing  also financially to Schemes. This figure represents just over 23% of all packaging waste placed in Malta and Gozo in the year 2010. It is estimated that in 2010 alone 87,000 tons of Packaging Waste were placed in the market in Malta and Gozo. To date a month after,  members with both Schemes have incresed by just over 150 to a mere 540 producers.  There was an increase but this is considered petty in comparison .

A meeting was held for the IT and Household Goods Operator Sectors where the main issue discussed was that which arose due to recent obligations developed under environmental laws and that operators complained that they do not want to pay Eco-Tax and Waste Packaging at the same time.

Basically importers of electrical and electronic equipment fell under the obligations of the WEEE Directive and as such are responsible for when the goods are disposed of and effectively become waste.

Eco-Tax was an issue that was given great importance throughout the meeting. There are still a large number of producers that have not registered yet for the packaging waste they place on the market and are therefore in breach of their current obligations these producers are expected to encounter problems in the near future.

Government right now is dragging his feet on introducing the WEEE system as Government wants first of all to have the producers in line with the Waste Packaging obligations and then it will introduce the WEEE system. As a result the WEEE system will take longer to be introduced and therefore the Eco-Tax situation will remain for sometime more. The operators are discontent with this as they pay more under the eco-tax whereas under the new WEEE system they would pay a much lesser fee to a waste compliance scheme according to the actual cost. The WEEE system will also be less costly because more operators will fall under it and therefore the burden will be better spread.

On the whole the system proposed to replace Eco-Tax was encouraged. This is because thanks to this system producers won't pay until the WEEE system is introduced and so they won't pay Eco-Tax and Waste Packaging at the same time.

It was also concluded that the law surrounding Eco-Tax would have to be amended and so discussions are to proceed in this regard. A meeting is to be held with every Ministry concerned, and a committee on behalf of GRTU is to be set up so as to attend these meetings.

At the end, it was highlighted that a lot of problems with consumers are faced and something has to be done so as to lighten up this problem. It was also agreed that a good idea would be that of having a representative to represent the sector when encountering such problems.

A committee led by GRTU was set up composed of different persons from the sector to represent the sections of IT & Household on behalf of GRTU when meetings are held so as to discuss Eco-Tax, WEEE, Waste Packaging and related problems.

Anyone who wishes to join this section committee in order to represent the section and the business do not hesitate to contact Bernice Cutajar or Liz Said at GRTU.