yesterday after it was revealed that complaints had soared.

Government Sen. Michael Scott said statistics had only been kept by the Consumer Affairs Bureau since 1997, but they had risen sharply the next year.

Mr. Scott said the bill -- the Consumer Protection Act 1999 -- would "vanquish the beast, that old foe of sloppiness, low energy and mediocrity''.

He added: "To fail to act on our resolve will mean that the very considerable decline in our standards that has so afflicted our services both in the private and public sectors will remain unaddressed.'' However, Opposition Senators variously described the bill as punitive and toothless.

The United Bermuda Party's Sen. Kim Swan said the idea for legislation had originated under the previous Government, but the bill lacked clarity and could lead to the Minister being swamped by complaints.

He said: "The onus is on the Minister to make all the decisions, it circumvents the board.

"This Act should have been based on some other Acts that do similar things.

The Police Complaint Authority have to hear complaints and that Act clearly spells out the functions of the board.

"We feel the bill is extremely punitive.'' Under the bill, businesses could be fined $10,000 with offenders facing six months in prison.

Independent Sen. Walwyn Hughes said the new law was a Pandora's box.

"We are only beginning to realise just how burdensome this bill can be. There could be thousands of complaints,'' he said.

"I would not call it draconian. I think it's weighed down by its own bureaucracy. I worry how much of a load will fall on the Minister and the executive officers.

"How are the simple things going to be resolved. If somebody finds milk on the shelf which is out of date they don't really want to go to court.

"I hope the veiled threat will make it work but I find the mechanism wanting.'' The UBP's Senate Leader Maxwell Burgess mocked the fact that businesses caught out by the new Act would have to pay a fine to the Government, not the consumer.

He said: "It's called the Consumer Protection Act, one would expect the consumer would be at the forefront of the Act. But if a company is fined $10,000, it goes straight into the Government trough. It won't help the consumer one bit.

"If the consumer has been hard done by why doesn't the consumer benefit?'' Progressive Labour Party Sen. Calvin Smith said the new law was an answer to unfair business practices, but he said it would need to be added to as time went on to stiffen it up.

Independent Sen. Jeanette Cannonier said: "The time has come when the consumer has to be protected. I heard Sen. Smith talk about monopolies and I hope something will be done in this regard.

"But I am concerned about the function of the board. Where are the teeth? Hopefully something will come forward to clean it up and give it some teeth.

But this bill is a step in the right direction.'' UBP Sen. Mark Pettingill said legal loopholes in the Act would create a field day for lawyers who would take the Government to court if they threatened a businessman's livelihood.

Sen. Hughes asked when and who would decide when a trader was carrying out unfair business practices.

Sen. Scott said section 14 of the bill allowed executing officers from the Consumer Affairs Bureau not to establish guilt, but to establish certain business practices.

Sen. Hughes asked if traders "thumbed their nose'' at the Bureau, would they go to Magistrates' Court and be fined. He was informed that further failure to comply would result in further court action and fines of between $1 and $1,000.

Sen. Cannonier expressed concern about the search and seize powers given to Bureau inspectors who, she said "could go in and seize anything they liked if they believe an offence has been committed''.

Sen. Scott replied that he accepted the Act did not expressly restrict documents seized, but it was general in search and seize provisions not to "bind the hands of the searcher''.

He also accepted that consumer protection was a "different kind of animal'' to drug search of Customs checks, but the principles of not restricting the searchers was the same.

Sen. Burgess asked Government to agree to keep a "watching brief'' on searches and to come back with an amendment if there had been abuses.

"We have to make it clear that while we give a wide range of provisions, if it is abused, we will deal with it,'' he said.

"We are a small society, and if someone goes in and seizes all sorts of things and they're found not guilty and they might find something else where they are also not guilty (of an offence).

"The businessman would ask if it put him in danger of going out of business.

I don't need to say how gossip goes around this society and it won't be long before someone goes out of business.'' The bill was passed without amendments.

CHART CONSUMER COMPLAINTS Consumer complaints 1997 1998 Total complaints 3,483 4,100 Retail Complaints 694 916 Trade Services 612 942 Landlord-Tenant 679 824