Bermuda's new bid to give consumers proper protection yesterday caused a war of words in the House of Assembly.

Development and Opportunity Minister Terry Lister told MPs consumer complaints were on the rise.

And he added the legislation offered a non-court redress for cheated customers for the first time in Bermuda.

But Shadow Development and Opportunity Minister Allan Marshall claimed the Act was too detailed and threatened further already-struggling small businesses.

He said: "It's draconian, too complicated and with too much emphasis on the punishment of businesses.'' But Mr. Lister insisted that the Consumer Protection Bill -- which passed last night -- would guarantee health and safety in food-selling by giving legal teeth to enforcing sell-by dates.

And he said enforcement powers for a new Consumer Affairs Board would add weight to consumer complaints.

Mr. Lister added: "The Consumer Affairs Bureau has carried out its work in a commendable manner.

"But with respect to the enforcement of decisions, no powers exist and so solutions such as we have been able to suggest result purely from cooperation between the consumers and retailers -- we do not regard that as satisfactory.'' And he insisted a new method of "guidance and enforcement'' would allow the Bureau to "operate more efficiently and, more importantly, provide protection for the Bermuda consumer''.

Mr. Lister added that the bill was the first phase in a three-pronged bid to upgrade shoppers' rights, with the bill being the first.

He added a framework for the Ministry to work from was needed, while 12 other Acts -- some dating back to last century -- would be amended to take account of changed requirements.

But Mr. Marshall said the legislation failed the "KISM'' test -- "Keep it simple, Minister'' -- and that draft copies of the bill should have been given to interested parties for their suggestions.

Bill passed Mr. Marshall added: "I'm very disappointed with the drafting of the bill -- it basically provides a great opportunity for the legal profession. They are going to have a heyday.'' And he said much of the bill's provisions appeared to be drawn from equivalent laws in much larger countries -- ones with massive manufacturing interests, unlike Bermuda.

Mr. Marshall added: "In a lot of the requirements to be imposed on our business community, it just doesn't seem to be a fit.'' And he said the bill did not deal properly with the concerns raised in a 1996 report on consumer affairs drawn up by a United Bermuda Party Government committee.

Mr. Marshall added that if he had a faulty toaster he did "not want to go to another body'' "I'd go to the shop with the toaster and ask him for another one,'' he said.

And he claimed that -- under the provisions of the bill -- a man working as a plumber for 25 years, but without a trade certificate, would no longer be able to call himself a plumber.

Mr. Marshall also pointed out that rules governing "Made in Bermuda'' marks could hurt businesses which created Island delicacies using local ingredients and recipes -- but which were manufactured abroad due to cheaper costs.

He said: "We don't want to jeopardise Bermuda intellectual property -- in order to stay in business, a lot of these businesses do their manufacturing overseas.'' Mr. Marshall added that most of the products bought in Bermuda had already passed safety tests in their countries of origin -- so there was no need for a bureaucracy to be created to do the same thing again in Bermuda.

He said: "This is too cumbersome and it's basically using a sledgehammer to crack a Christmas nut.'' Mr. Marshall added: "Sensible, non-bureaucratic powers are needed and they should be put in place when a customer is not getting satisfaction from a business provider.