Arising out of the media briefing earlier this week by Chief Inspector of the Guyana National Bureau of Standards (GNBS) Mr Shailendra Rai, we now know that hundreds of measuring devices including scales, masses and rulers that have not been verified as reliable and accurate were being employed to weigh and otherwise measure quantities in the business sector. We learnt further that measuring implements intended for domestic purposes were also being used in the commercial sector.
The issue that arises immediately is whether, over a period of time and to an extent that we are unable to determine, consumers of one good or another have not in fact been considerably short-changed which, of course, is the same as saying that they were being robbed.
Mind you, we have also learnt that these discoveries were made during a surveillance and inspection campaign in April, which of course begs the question as to the periodicity of those inspections and whether said inspections are able to optimize the detection of these unapproved and unverified implements.
Mr Rai is quoted in the Stabroek News of Tuesday June 6 as saying that the aim of the recent crackdown is “to ensure that the devices used in trade are accurate and reliable” though, surely, there appears to be a lack of what one might call “structure” to the whole inspection process. Even making allowances for the fact that the GNBS – like, it seems, most other state agencies with oversight responsibilities – may be stretched in terms of staff, the overwhelming importance of providing consumer assurance in terms of the veracity of weights and other measurements places at the door of the GNBS the responsibility to fashion a regime of inspection that serves as a deterrent to would-be transgressors.
Frankly, the scarcity of staff ought not to undermine altogether a diligent and determined effort to ensure that more than 100 vendors at the Stabroek Market are able – presumably over a period of time, to possess measuring implements that are not only unverified but which repeatedly ‘short change’ consumers. All of this, by the admission of the GNBS itself has being going on during what may be described as a crackdown period.
But that is not all. It appears that the regulations governing the verification of scales and the existence of penalties associated with transgression notwithstanding the GNBS, according to Mr Rai continues to pursue a policy of “advising” transgressors not to use the unverified scales, a circumstance that gives rise to the view that the delinquency of the owners of the defective scales may well be, in large measure, a function of the laxness of the GNBS’ oversight methods. Absurdly, the reason provided for the Bureau’s failure to enforce its own penalties is that they are too small (surely small penalties are better than no penalties at all) and it seems that no one knows for sure just when the Weights and Measurements Act will be reviewed.
As for the destruction of the confiscated scales the issue also arises as to whether, (in the cases of those scales that may be allowable in the trading sector but were seized solely for the reason that they circumvented the verification process) the owners may simply not be required to verify them. In cases where domestic scales were being used in the trading sector, these may simply be returned to the owners (since they can, of course, be used at home) while those scales deemed to be defective must, of course, be destroyed.
Of course, there is really no good reason why, beginning with the current batch of confiscated scales, the existing penalties should not be applied immediately, whatever the views of Mr Rai on their size and effectiveness. Of course, the thing to do – apart from move to strengthen the enforcement capability of the GNBS is to hasten the review of the extant legislation. But then that is another matter.
