Consumers would soon have an additional outlet to register their complaints about local products and services outside of simply seeking a remedy through the courts if a Consumer Protection Bill is passed in the House of Assembly.
The government took a step toward making that happen yesterday as debate started on the proposed legislation.
Drafted along the guidelines established by the United States Guidelines for Consumer Protection, the Bill seeks to better protect consumers against unscrupulous businesspersons and to ensure that their concerns are adequately addressed.
A key plank in making this happen is the establishment of a Consumer Commission that would be appointed by the governor general, consist of a chairman, a deputy chairman and no fewer than five, but no more than nine members.
According to Minister of Local Government & Consumer Affairs V. Alfred Gray, the Commission would generally be empowered to receive complaints that affect consumers.
He said it would also represent consumers in the event such matters go to court.
Under the proposed legislation, persons who fail to assist the Commission in its investigation would face a fine of up to $2,000.
Minister Gray further explained that in the event the consumer is a minor, disabled or has died, the complaint may be made by the parent, guardian, other family member or another representative.
However, should the Commission determine the complaint is frivolous or “not made in good faith,” the Commission can refuse to investigate or discontinue an investigation already in progress.
The minister would also be empowered to recall goods that may cause injury or prevent certain goods from been imported into the country.
“This Bill is basically for crooks, people who try to hoodwink the unsuspecting public,” Minister Gray said.
The minister also pointed out that while the Bill would protect the consumer, it would also protect the provider.
“In some instances, we know that if providers could not repossess their goods, they may never get paid,” he said.
“So the right of repossession is very important, but the provider must follow the procedure so that we minimize confrontation.”
Minister Gray admitted that the Chamber of Commerce had expressed concerns about several issues outlined in the Bill.
He, however, assured that the government has since reviewed those matters and that it was generally agreed that except for two of the issues, the Chamber’s position could be accepted.
Minister Gray foreshadowed possibly eight amendments to the proposed legislation before its passage.
Carmichael MP John Carey urged the government to ensure that its follow-up action matches its intention.
“Will this Bill create another bureaucracy that does not yield the desired result? This is of particular importance given the experience of so many members of the public as they interact with government agencies,” Mr. Carey said.
“It is equally important that as we develop legislative action that gives the framework necessary to deal with a matter as significant as consumer protection that in this development the essence of what we want to accomplish is not lost in bureaucracy. I am absolutely sure that the intention of the government is correct.”
Mr. Carey also suggested that the proposed fines be “substantially” increased.
“No one should believe that he or she can mislead the public in providing goods and services and be given a slap on the wrist. Hence, a more appropriate fine would be at least $10,000,” he said.
“We must discourage businesses and persons conducting business from being dishonest and if the business in small, a sum of this amount hurts. For medium and large businesses, this is petty change. The point is we must be tough on crime and it starts with petty crimes and violations of the law. No excuses.”
Garden Hills MP Veronica Owens noted the government can never completely protect consumers.
“Consumers should follow instructions, practice good maintenance, use good sense, watch out for others and above all, be fair-minded and do not blame others for an accident or illness caused by your own carelessness or negligence,” Ms. Owens said.
But High Rock MP Kenneth Russell was not so quick to accept the Bill as is.
He insisted that the proposed legislation is not good and that it is not an adequate start as the court does not have to abide by the provisions of the Bill, a claim the government quickly denied.
“Where is the protection there?” Mr. Russell asked. “We need more education. We need to encourage more liberation because this is a serious piece of legislation-There does not appear to provide justice for all.”
Mr. Russell insisted the proposed legislation undergo further review before it is passed.
By: Macushla N. Pinder, The Bahama Journal
