The court usually makes decisions based on the results of the examination appointed by it (it is paid by the party who lost the dispute). It would therefore be logical for the parties to resolve most of these disputes by contacting an expert together. Of course, if there are experts nearby, whose qualifications and integrity are beyond doubt, who do not need to be registered for a year, and the price for their services is reasonable. But with this we, alas, have big problems, and it seems that they cannot be solved without the help of the state. Help here is needed not financial, but rather administrative. It is necessary to establish requirements for experts, rules for assessing compliance with these requirements, it is necessary to monitor the integrity of organizations that have undertaken such work.
We expected something like this when we saw the president’s instruction to the government following the results of this meeting “to prepare proposals for the formation of a system for the pre-trial settlement of disputes over the protection of consumer rights and the development of an institution for independent review of the quality of goods and services with the participation of public associations, consumer associations (trade unions) in this work”.
But, apparently, for the government, it would be too easy. He delegated the matter to the Ministry of Justice, but how strong is the Ministry of Justice? In the laws, of course. He suggested that he be instructed to prepare a bill. Not even two years have passed since we saw this project, which is very large. I will not go into details, I will only say that neither the other ministries nor we social activists approved this project, and the government sent it back to the Ministry of Justice.
But since the presidential decree remained under control, the department quickly prepared a new draft law, the government submitted it urgently to the Duma, and the Duma adopted it urgently in the first reading during one of the last meetings before his re-elections. I know what happens when the minds of MPs are no longer in the boardroom, but in their constituencies. The new project had nothing to do with the previous one, which is good. But even with the order of the president, only a reference to it in the explanatory note as the basis for the development of the project was common. The project completely ignored the second part of the instruction about independent expertise, and the first – by 95%, since it narrowed its topic to Internet commerce, and limited the topics of its application to the circle of consumers which have “Enhanced Qualified Electronic Service”. signature or an enhanced unqualified electronic signature” on the portal of state services, the verification key certificate of which has been created and is used in the infrastructure.
Commerce on the Internet, of course, is growing very rapidly, but 90% of the turnover of goods and services is not done on the Internet, which means that the bulk of consumer complaints and related disputes are now presented and resolved, as they say, offline, and such a law does not apply to them. will help. When it comes to online shopping, if consumers have any complaints, they usually send their inquiries directly to the seller or to the site, in the same way that they entered into an agreement with them, i.e. on Internet, and do not need state services as a “postman”.
Now the bill is being prepared for second reading, and things are moving towards the fact that another law will soon appear that will allow (and even force) spending budget money to create a resource that no one does not need and create the appearance of satisfaction the President’s order, when nothing will change in life and offended consumers will still be hanging from the thresholds of the courts.
This story is not unique, I will give another very similar example. Five years ago, also in April, during a meeting with the president, doctors complained that there were many diseases in the country caused by iodine deficiency and that the task of preventing them was wrong. managed. Consequences – mental retardation, especially in childhood and adolescence, the birth of children with cretinism, infertility, goiter. Annoyance for people, their families, huge expenses and even more lost revenue for the state. Despite the fact that in developed countries they have long learned how to prevent iodine deficiency by deliberately adding iodine to the diet, mainly through iodized salt and dietary supplements.
The president instructed the government to submit proposals “on the introduction of iodine-enriched food products (mainly salt) into production and their use in public catering, medical, preschool, educational institutions, sanatoriums and others” .
It would seem that the first thing that could not only be proposed, but also quickly implemented by the government, is to include an obligation to use a certain proportion of iodized products in the state social order for the restoration , which is fully funded (as in the army units and places of detention) or partially (as in children’s institutions) from the federal and regional budgets. But, apparently, it would be too simple and unworthy, so in this case it was decided to draw up a bill and entrust it to the Ministry of Health.
I will not describe how this bill, like Odysseus wandering in search of Ithaca, was looking for a way into the State Duma. Now he has almost achieved it – everyone who was supposed to agree on this, has agreed, and approximately this will be submitted by the government, and the Duma almost always agrees to such projects.
Let us see, however, how the adoption of this project will solve the problem of preventing iodine deficiency. To do this, it provides an exhaustive list of four “activities”. Two of them – the mandatory use of iodized salt in the production of food products and the mandatory fortification of bakery products with iodine – are intended only for social organizations, military units and places of deprivation of liberty and do not apply to households where children and adults primarily eat, and public catering organizations. I repeat that with regard to provisions financed by the budgets, they can be established by the government without a special law.
Another “event”, the visual highlighting of iodized salt on store shelves. It is unlikely that this will encourage buyers who did not prefer it before to change their choice. According to a study by UNICEF, in Russia, unlike the vast majority of European countries, only 35% of families consume iodized salt, and clearly not because it is difficult to find on the shelves.
The last “measure” consists in informing the population about the risks of iodine deficiency and preventive measures. It has been provided for by the Federal Law “On the Basic Principles of Health Protection of Citizens of the Russian Federation” for many years, so duplication in another law will not change anything here if the current norm has not yet been implemented or has been implemented ineffectively.
But in this form, this law will not only be almost useless, but also fraught with the risk of excessive intake of iodine, which is also dangerous for health. They can be caused by switching to exclusively iodized salt, especially in those whose diets take up too much of this product.
Of course, this does not reduce the importance of preventing iodine deficiency, only it is eliminated not by good intentions, but by specific realistic measures. First by iodizing food where the state pays, which should have been done a long time ago. Second, the mass propaganda of such prevention, for which, again, it is not a new law that is needed, but a conscientious implementation of the current law. Thirdly, since iodine deficiency is most dangerous during the period of body growth, the inclusion of dietary supplements containing iodine in the diet of children in preschool institutions and schools to the detriment of budgets.
I believe that the two laws will be passed this year, the instructions are “closed”, and the solution of two acute problems will be postponed for years. What can we learn from these two fairly typical stories? That the road to hell is paved with good intentions? That the Russian bureaucracy has no “backsides”? That she solves the problems of her well-being, and not of society? Plain and depressing. No, I will draw a positive and saving conclusion: no special operation, during which the last stage of these stories fell, in any way affected the practices of the Russian bureaucracy, and I am already ready to believe that a nuclear war will not affect it either, if, of course, it has enough reliable shelters. She is invincible. And we must learn to solve our own problems. So let us wish that there was enough iodine in the bodies of our children and grandchildren and that we were less likely to encounter poor quality goods and services.
