Author: SME Chamber

The Malta Competition and Consumer
Affairs Authority has been notified of a number of products which pose a
serious risk to consumers. The below details refer: Should your company retail, import or
distribute the product in question, you are requested to notify GRTU without
delays, so necessary action is taken as soon as possible. If you are aware of
any person or company who is retailing, importing or distributing this product,
kindly notify the undersigned so as to contact such person or company.

May we remind you of the obligations
under the General Product Safety Act that manufacturers/ importers/
distributors of products on the market in Malta are required to report any incidents
occurring and involving products they represent.

Notification
1: Red-painted metal spade with wooden
handle.

Danger Details: Chemical. The product
poses a chemical risk because lead migration is 1307 mg/kg. The limit value for
lead migration is 90 mg/kg. The product does not comply with the Toys Safety
Directive and with the relevant European standard EN 71-3.

Notification
2: Batch number/Barcode: 0276134000036. A
doll with a hard plastic body, in a violet dress. The toy is packed in a
transparent cylinder on which a permanent CE marking is printed.

Danger Details: Chemical. The products
pose a chemical risk because the dolls contain 9.7 % by weight of bis
(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). According to the REACH Regulation, the
phthalates DEHP, DBP and BBP are prohibited in all toys and childcare articles,
while phthalates DINP, DIDP and DNOP are prohibited in toys or childcare
articles that can be placed in the mouth by

children.

Notification
3: Batch number/Barcode: 8422562691250.
Three-piece child's Musketeer outfit: 1 pair of white, elasticated-waist
trousers, 1 red shirt and 1 red cape. Both the cape and the shirt are secured
around the neck using cords. The packaging is a transparent bag with a card
inside bearing: the image of a boy with the musketeer outfit, the word
"Infantil", the size and information about the contents.

Danger Details: Strangulation. The
product poses a risk of strangulation due to the presence of cords with loose
ends in the neck area which are too long. The product does not comply with the
relevant European standard EN 14682.

Establishment – The Libyan businessmen Council believes
in the importance of the role of economic activity in state-building and
strengthening its existence as well as its movement towards progress and
prosperity, for maintaining the position of businessmen in pushing the economic
activity and enhancing the stability of the market for achieving the goals and
aspirations in building up a free and strong economy that may make all
Libyan  citizens enjoy it, in carrying out the role of the Libyan
businessmen, Libyan Businessmen Council has been established on 17/11/2011.

Through this firm, they will be able to
communicate with each other, all state agencies and departments as well as
their counterparts in the regional and international areas. So that they can do
the role they are assigned for and fulfill their objective mission successfully
as it enjoys its own legal personality and independent financial state.

Council's
headquarters

The headquarters of the Council is in
Misrata city and its offices will be also established in the other Libyan
cities.

Council's
Objectives

1- to seek developing and organizing
the basis of the economic activity, through the initiative to improve and
develop the tools of this activity in order to achieve greater growth and
prosperity

2- to disseminate the culture of a free
economy that suits the Libyan society and its economic structure.

3- to contribute to building the state
economic institutions depending on scientific and practical competencies.

4- to participate in the preparation
and drafting of economic legislations and provide opinions on the government
economic trends and policies

5- to develop and strengthen the
economic relations and internal and external trade based on honorable
competition and reject and fight against fraud, counterfeiting and commercial
fraud, which lead to damage the economic infrastructure..

This consultation is directed at business operators active in
manufacturing, trading or retailing ceramic articles intended for food
contact.  There is also a possible extension of the legislation to glass.

.

Currently the limits for the release
of metals from ceramic materials and articles into food are set out by Council
Directive 84/500/EEC. Under this Directive, only Lead and Cadmium are
regulated. EFSA published in 2009 and 2010 opinions on these two metals. From
these opinions it follows that the limits under the Directive are too high to
adequately protect the health of consumers.

The current limits in force are
0.3mg/l food for cadmium and 4mg/l food for lead. These values should be
interpreted as the maximum amount of cadmium or lead migrating into 1 litre of
food stimulant using a standard migration test.

In addition to the EFSA opinions, the
Commission received indications from the Member States that also the limits for
other metals would need regulation in the scope of a new measure, and that
other materials, in particular glass, may need to be added as well.

To achieve these objectives, the
Commission has adopted a two phase approach:

In the first phase new limits for lead and cadmium will be laid down in
a new measure under Article (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 on materials
and articles intended to come into contact with food. This new measure will
supersede the current Directive.

In
the second phase other objectives including new limits for metals other than
lead and cadmium and materials other than ceramic material (notably glass) will
be investigated.

The current time line foresees
adoption of the new measure laying down new limits for lead and cadmium in the
second quarter of 2013. The value of the limits and the entry into force of the
limits is subject of this consultation.

Proposed values for Cadmium and Lead

In the context of the first phase,
the Commission considers to propose the values of 5 μg/kg food for the
release of cadmium into food and of 10 μg/kg food for lead as new
limits.

These proposed values
are based on health based guidance values set in EFSA opinions:

Lead: EFSA defines a Benchmark Dose Lower Confidence
Limit (BMDL01) of 0.5 μg / kg body weight (b.w.) / day

Cadmium: EFSA defines a Tolerable Weekly Intake (TWI)
of 2.5 μg / kg b.w.

Subsequently the conventional
assumptions to calculate release limits for food contact materials have been
applied to these values. According to these assumptions a 60 kg adult consumes
daily 1 kg of food in contact with ceramic materials.

Because the total exposure to all
sources of these metals (e.g. from the consumption of food) is in the range of
the guidance values set by EFSA, an allocation factor of 10% is applied for
food contact materials.

Thus release limits for cadmium of 2 μg/kg food and lead of 3 μg/kg food, result.

The experts of the Member States
indicated that these release limits would provide largely adequate limits on
the basis of the toxicology and exposure. However from their comments it
becomes clear that in particular the limit for lead maybe too high, because of
the high exposure of the population to lead from other sources. This would
justify an allocation factor lower than the applied 10%.

To derive the proposed
limits the following factors were also taken into account:

expected analytical difficulties in determining lead
and cadmium concentrations at the low levels;

difficulties for industry to comply;

consistency with the limits set in the Drinking Water
Directive (DWD, Council Directive 98/83/EC10 on the quality of water intended
for human consumption).

Based on these considerations the
Commission considers proposing the above mentioned values of 5 μg/kg
food for cadmium and 10 μg/kg food for lead as new specific migration
limits. This
proposal would reduce the limits currently in force by a factor 60 for
cadmium
and a factor 400 for lead.

Comments are to be sent on

Wednesday 5^th September 2012

Why
did you become an entrepreneur and how have you come to choose your line of
business?When
I look back it seems that it was decided for me. I was a teacher, we were
actually a group of teachers at University, physicists, biologists, etc… and we
started a club as amateurs learning how to dive.

Where
did you go on your last holiday?

Thailand
for diving. For diving some places were really nice while others not as much. I
have been to a lot of countries diving and what always strikes me is how much
the Governments of these countries help them and they operate without any kind
of problem, no red tape, no complication just easy accessible diving. This is
something very far from our reality in Malta.

What
is your earliest memory?

I
remember always loving the sea. I was a bit of a tomboy when I was young. Me
and my group of friends would cross the harbour in Senglea from one buoy to
another. Today I realise how dangerous it was. We were little dare devils.

If
you could chose to be someone famous who would you be and why?

Jacques
Custeau probably. He was a pioneer in diving. I admire people like him. I would
also have loved to know how to sing properly though. I love singing but I'm not
good musically, can't tell a note from another.

Following a meeting during which GRTU's President Paul Abela
had the opportunity to discuss with Mme Le Bail, previous Commission SME Envoy
and European Commission DG Justice, the issue of Authorities charging
businesses.

It is of no use pointing fingers to
whoever is responsible for implementing a Waste Management Strategy if whoever
is responsible for environmental policy does not have the guts to legislate in
the right manner. Beyond legislation comes enforcement, which is inexistent in
2012.

Taking a close look at the Packaging
Producers Register (online 24/7 on MEPA's website) will show that 3195
importers, traders and businesses are registered with the Competent Authority,
out of which 2387 are members of either Green MT or Greenpak.

260 producers have deregistered, which
means that they no longer place packaging waste in the market and the remaining
548 are declaring that they are self compliant. Self Compliance means that
these producers are able to collect at source over 60% of their packaging
waste, somehow segregate it, have it collected by an authorized Waste carrier
who forwards it to an authorized waste management facility who in turn forwards
it to a waste broker for eventual export to obtain a final recycling
certificate.

Whilst Schemes continue to face
reporting structures and internal audit procedures that are draconian in
nature, because they represent a substantial number of producers of course,
self compliance is never checked and no audit trail is forthcoming. Of course
the producer receives a letter giving him the parameters of self compliance,
but following that nothing is being done.

In the enforcement of packaging waste
regulations, only the two Authorized Schemes are chased to comply to their
obligations day in day out, whilst self compliant producers are allowed a
laissez faire attitude. Amongst these producers who declare themselves self
compliant are some of Malta's major importers and manufacturers whose products
finally end up at the consumer, the resulting packaging in the grey or green bag,
collected by the Schemes, which collection is paid for by the Schemes

Adding insult to injury, the policy
maker is reluctant to change the legislation so that those producers who place
packaging waste on the market directly to the consumers can only comply to the
legislation by being members of Authorized Schemes. And you know why, because
some of these producers are heavy weights and untouchables who make use of
every cent placed on the table by Malta Enterprise and also any ERDF funds, but
then fail to meet their environmental obligations as the need requires.

Minister Demarco is taking a back seat.
Time is tolling and probably Minister Demarco does not have the guts to issue a
legal notice enforcing on producers who place consumer packaging in the market to be members of Schemes but
Schemes are made to recover their packaging waste!

Instead, in a meeting GRTU had earlier
this week with the Minister Demarco, and the higher echelons of MEPA, they
opined for more enforcement and more ways to make sure that self compliant
members are actually self compliant.

Well, GRTU has a message for you, Mr
Minister…producers were promised a fair and level playing field, we were
promised enforcement, real enforcement, enforcement that produces results.
Schemes were promised to be a part of an Enforcement Monitoring Committee,
according to the last Budget speech. This has not transpired. In the last year
2012 we have had no enforcement to date, the Enforcement Directorate in respect
to Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulations was nowhere to be seen. It has
faltered and faltered miserably to the detriment of Schemes. No penalties to
producers who have failed to oblige to Packaging regulations were issued in
2012. What actions will you take to awaken a dead Directorate? And will you
take it now with an election looming? GRTU surely hopes you deliver on your
words. GRTU will leave no stone unturned to make sure that what it has done for
the environment to date continues. We are proud of what we have done. We were
and still are environment stalwarts in Malta. Maybe you were not in the picture
then, but Schemes and the recovery of packaging waste and its setting up did
not come up overnight. It took long hard hours of work together with The
Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs, Local Councils and the Local Councils
Association, the Department of Local Government, MHRA, the Malta Chamber of
Commerce and Industry, the then Federation of Industry, and last but not least
WasteSer, the National Waste Management Company. We had one problem then which
continues to date. MEPA always stood its ground. MEPA was always a different
Government, Government no 2 so as to say. Today it remains the same. The people
change but the concept lingers. It has ingrained itself too deep.

Another insult to Authorized Packaging
Schemes is the fact that another three applications for Authorized Packaging
Schemes have been placed with the Competent Authorities. Green MT and Greenpak
Co-op both recover from Local Councils the grey or green bag and also maintain
Bring in Sites in all 68 of the Local Councils in Malta and Gozo. If the
Authorities that be decide to issue one operating environmental permit without
obliging a competing Scheme to do the same, we will stop operations the next day. And we mean it.

The message is loud and clear.  If another Scheme is Authorized with no
obligation to recover from Local Councils, Government will be lumped overnight
with the expense of both Schemes current operations. A tune of nearly six million Euros annually….Ministry of Finance please
note.

Our waste management strategy from a
policy point of view needs beefing up in many more ways than one, but of course
this is no easy time to take decisions. Decisions are not taken on the basis of
whether they would enhance our environment in a holistic manner, but on other
criteria known to one and all at this time.

GRTU has one message to Hon Minister
Demarco. There are times when one is faced with decisions to take and not every
decision taken will result in everyone clapping for you. This time around you
have let down 2387 decent
producers who are members to Authorized Schemes, and you have opted to please 548 SELF COMPLIANT producers .

But we are duty bound to inform our producer members that
your Ministry has failed in delivering the right parameters for a fair and
level playing field to date. Of course we all shoulder the responsibility for
the decisions we take…time will tell…and time has no mercy…

GRTU was the National Organisation that
backed the reform of the public transport system. Malta badly needed a new
public transport system as the old one was not only archaic but beyond reform.
When Arriva came GRTU did its best to cooperate believing that a better and
more modern transport system could ease the tremendous traffic problems that
Malta is facing,

resolve the ever increasing environmental hazard of excessive
emissions and, more especially in the case of our members, better means to
connect to commercial centres and thus facilitate increased business. But what
a dream has this turned out to be.
There is only one word that can describe Arriva today.

It is
a DISASTER. One year after, the problems that were there, and that all of us
optimists believed to be temporary, have now not only become permanent but the
delays and inefficient service have actually increased. Adding to the burdens
that commuters are suffering on a day to day basis because of Arriva that had
started relatively more customer friendly than the previous regime, Arriva has
now become increasingly arrogant. Hardly a day passes that the GRTU does not
receive complaints and stories of incredible misbehavior by Arriva personnel.

There is never an excuse for misbehavior. There is never an
excuse for bad service. We have given up complaining because Arriva gives the
impression that they simply do not care. It is obvious that Arriva is incapable
of resolving its own problems. Its bad management goes beyond any reasonable
comprehension. It is now up to Government to take serious action. Malta cannot
simply afford any more this lousy service. Malta deserves much much better.

Credit cards:
Visa declined to give commitments on the rates for consumer credit cards and
only agreed to the 0.2% rate for debit. The SSO therefore takes the preliminary
view that Visa's credit card MIFs are contrary to competition law, following
the same arguments as those in the MasterCard case.

Cross-border
acquiring: the Commission's preliminary view is tha
Visa's rules on cross-border acquiring also breach the antitrust rules and stop
merchants benefiting from lower MIFs in other member states.

GRTU
considers this is very good news, which we have been expecting for some time.
Following the judgement in MasterCard, we certainly anticipate a favourable
outcome.

The European Commission has informed
Visa of additional concerns about possible violations of EU antitrust rules
concerning multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) set by Visa. The so-called
'supplementary statement of objections' (SSO) relates to MIFsset by Visa for
transactions with consumer credit cards in the European Economic Area (EEA).
MIFs are an important part of the total cost that retailers must pay for
accepting Visa's consumer payment cards and establish a minimum price for
retailers.

The Commission's preliminary view is that
these MIFs restrict competition between banks and infringe EU antitrust rules
that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices. At this stage, the
Commission also doubts that Visa's MIFs are necessary to create efficiencies
that benefit merchants and consumers and could therefore be entitled to an
exception from these rules. The sending of a supplementary statement of
objections does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation.

Today's SSO concerns all MIFs set
directly by Visa in the EEA for transactions with consumer credit cards. These
MIFs currently apply to all cross-border transactions in the EEA, as well as
to domestic transactions in eight EU Member States (Belgium, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Malta, The Netherlands and Sweden). These inter-bank
fees are paid by merchants' banks (acquirers) to cardholders' banks (issuers)
for transactions with Visa's consumer credit cards.

The Commission has reached the
preliminary conclusion that MIFs reduce price competition between banks by creating
an important cost element common to all acquirers. The Commission considers
that Visa's MIFs harm competition between acquiring banks, inflate the cost of
payment card acceptance for merchants and ultimately increase consumer prices.
The Commission's analysis follows closely the judgment of the EU General Court
of May 2012 in the MasterCard case, which fully upheld the Commission's
findings in this respect.

Further, the Commission considers at
this stage that the MIFs' contribution to technical and economic progress,
which could justify an exemption under Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) has not been proven. Even if this were
the case, the Commission considers that the Visa MIFs are not set in a way that
would allow consumers to enjoy a fair share of such benefits.
Moreover, the actual Visa MIFs do not appear to be indispensable to
the attainment of the efficiencies claimed.

In addition, the Commission holds the
preliminary view that rules obliging cross-border acquirers to pay MIFs
applicable in the country of transaction hinder cross-border acquiring and
maintain the segmentation of national markets. The Commission considers that
this breaches EU antitrust rules and prevents merchants from benefiting from
lower MIFs in other Member States.

Background

Visa's credit and debit cards represent
approximately 41% of all payment cards issued in the EEA. Visa has the largest
acceptance network within the EEA with over 5 million merchants accepting its
payment cards. In 2010 a total of 35 billion card payments were made in the
EEA, with a total value of €1800 billion.

Following the opening of proceedings in
March 2008, the Commission sent Visa in April 2009 a Statement of Objections
concerning multilateral interchange fees ("MIFs") for consumer debit
and credit card transactions. Visa Europe offered commitments to cap its debit
card MIFs at 0.20%, which the Commission made binding in December 2010. The
proceedings regarding consumer credit MIFs continued.

Article 101 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the EU (TFEU) andArticle 53 of the EEA Agreement prohibit
cartels and restrictive business practices. Article 101(3) TFEU allows certain
practices to be exempted from this prohibition on condition that they improve
production or distribution or contribute to technical or economic progress,
provided that a fair share of the benefits are passed on to consumers, and that
the practices are proportionate and do not eliminate competition.

According to European Environment
Agency, several EU Member States missed the 2010 limits to green-house
emissions. Transport is responsible for a large
share of urban air pollution. Road freight vehicles in an urban environment
usually emit a greater proportion of certain pollutants per kilometre than
other motor vehicles such as cars and motorcycles, and their fuel consumption
is higher per unit of distance travelled besides the fact that many of them use
high-carbon intensive fuel.

This year the number of motor vehicles
in Malta went up by 2.4 % compared to 2011 reaching a fleet of 313,027 units,
of which 13% is represented by freight vehicles.

Moreover, the country currently has the
5th highest number of vehicles per capita in the world, with 743 motor vehicles
per 1,000 people, causing major congestion problems at peak times, especially
in the areas with the highest population and trade density such as Marsa,
Birkirkara, Luqa and Qormi.

Malta, as many other EU Countries, is
facing major barriers to implement sustainable energy measures, aimed in
particular at an efficient freight distribution and transport management. Even
where there is a strong commitment to improve efficiency levels, cities often
lack the needed information, supportive national level policies, access to
financing, etc.

There is considerable consensus that
improving the energy efficiency of passenger/goods transport is a key challenge
in moving towards a more sustainable energy future. But meeting such a
challenge requires an evidence-based approach.

The C-Liege Project (Clean Last Mile
Transport and Logistics Management for Smart and Efficient Local Governments in
Europe) has been developed with the aim to set criteria for assessing and
improving the sustainability of transport policies promoting energy efficient
and cleaner freight movements in urban areas, providing a novel set of
integrated solutions and applying a mix of "push & pull" measures
to city time slots/space allocation. The Project is co-funded by the
Intelligent Energy Europe Programme.

Malta is one of the seven EU pilot
sites and the Maltese consortium's partner, Paragon Europe, is committed to get
Local Authorities and other key stakeholders involved in the process to discuss
and finally introduce and implement transport measures already deployed in
other EU cities. This process started with the organization of two Round Table
meetings in Attard, where Paragon Europe invited the Local Councils of Tarxien,
Marsa, Luqa, Birzebbuga and Safi, together with other relevant organizations
(Traffic Police, the University of Malta) and private Businesses (Valletta
Gateway Terminals, shippers and freight operators).

The discussions brought to the
attention the major problems affecting the freight transport sector and their
causes, such as high number of second hand freight vehicles, double space
parking due to lack of unloading bays, no alternative delivery systems, absence
of Freight Quality Partnerships, minimal usage of environmentally friendly
vehicles and time restrictions in Custom Offices in Malta, which run on
government based hours and run until 4pm in Winter and 1pm in Summer.

Successively, the attendees identified
some good measures that could alleviate the traffic congestion in the urban
areas, such as fiscal
incentives to vehicles' replacement, Environmental Zones, Heavy
cargo ban during rush hours and night
delivery. Some Local Councils present committed themselves to discuss these
policies and create a preferential path for their implementation.

Paragon Europe and its Maltese partners
are convinced that such measures can support the Government's efforts in
reducing and better managing freight transport issues within the Maltese urban
centres.