Senators yesterday passed a law protecting consumers from shoddy workmanship.

The Supply of Services (Implied Terms) Act 2003 enshrines common law principles in the statute books, making it clear that consumers who get conned by shoddy work or exorbitant pricing will be able to have their rights enforced in court.

Opposition Senator Leonard Santucci questioned whether a provision allowing the Minister of Consumer Affairs to invoke an exemption clause would be used by Government to change the terms of the Berkeley construction contract.

"We support the bill as it relates to a step forward but we support it with concern," said Sen. Santucci.

The Senator said that the enforceability of a completion bond contract for the Berkeley project was in question and that the exemption clause could be the mechanism that gets the Government out of a bind if the project is not completed by September as promised in the contract.

But Government Senate Leader David Burch said that the intent of the bill was to protect the average consumer who would normally go to the Consumer Affairs department with complaints and he doubted whether major companies like the Bank of Bermuda or Berkeley contractor ProActive were in that category.

The bill covers a range of professions, including lawyers, doctors, electricians, plumbers, contractors and mechanics.

Some of its key provisions impose implied terms in any agreement to provide a service even if those terms are not written into the agreement.

The supplier has to carry out the service with "reasonable care and skill", within a reasonable time period and be paid a reasonable fee.

But the Minister can pass an order exempting some services from those provisions. That, said Sen. Santucci, opens the way for Consumer Affairs Minister Randolph Horton to help out his colleague, Works Minister Alex Scott by exempting contractor ProActive from delivering the finished school on time.

Such a move would help Union Assets Holding, which provided the completion bond, by staving off a $7 million liability, Sen. Santucci said.

But Government Senators scoffed at the suggestion.

The bill is based on similar legislation in the United Kingdom but goes a step further in that it specifically does not allow agreements which exempt the service provider from some of its terms.

It applies only to people who represent themselves as in business to provide a service and not, for example, to the neighbour who volunteers to fix something in someone's house.

It is the third major piece of consumer protection legislation brought forward by the Government.

Sen. Burch promised that a companion piece of legislation, which would require certification of tradespeople, was in the offing.