The Editor, Sir:

As the economic crunch starts to set in, everyone is becoming far more aware of the need for government to cut waste and become lean and mean. Unfortunately, when most people talk about cutting down on the bloated bureaucracy, they tend to think of central government. However, the reality is that employment in central government is mainly concentrated in security, health and education, all of which are under-staffed if we are to believe the figures.

Quite frankly, I think where we can cut expenditure is in the areas of local government, statutory bodies, government companies and fringe agencies.

For, really, what does a small country with less than three million people need 13 parish councils and 13 mayors for? Heck, man, we have enough politicians to give pensions without adding another 13 layers of government. Why not move to County Councils as has been proposed for decades?

And has the prime minister, in his so-called quest to change course, instructed his many ministers to take a hard look at the number of statutory bodies and departments that proliferate in their ministries with a view to merging those that overlap and phasing out those that no serve no useful purpose?

Agencies tripping over each other

For example, has anyone really noticed how many different agencies there are that are supposed to look about the welfare of children? (while the children perish!) Are they all serving a useful function or just tripping over each other?

How many of the agencies now in operation are only able to pay rent and staff and have nothing left for operation? Obviously, they are not carrying out their mandate, so isn't it obvious that we can do without them?

The last figure I heard concerning statutory bodies and agencies was in excess of 300. How many are really functioning in the interest of taxpayers, as opposed to creating employment opportunities for persons with political contacts?

Also, when an agency is no longer relevant, why not phase it out? The Rent Board comes quickly to mind for it was set up in the days when free enterprise was a bad word and their function was to deal with "wicked landlords". They effectively crippled the low-cost rental market, leaving the few landlords in that category to be freely fleeced by "wicked tenants". As we evolve into a market economy, surely, the issue of rent should be left to private contracts between landlord and tenant?

'Changing course'

Another agency whose usefulness one has to wonder about is the Fair Trading Commission (FTC). As I understand it, its core function is to deal with false advertisements. I took the FTC on its word once and reported a case in which the product did not match up to the promise. Guess what, it sent me a very expensive looking brochure, outlining its functions (one of which was to do with false advertising) and told me to refer my complaint to the Consumer Affairs Commission (CAC). Now, that is one excellently run government agency. The public would be far better served if the FTC was phased out and half the budget given to the CAC!

This is the type of analysis expected from a government intent on "changing course" and giving taxpayers a break. But I guess I should not hold my breath that any such exercise will ever take place, for I guess they too are required to provide "jobs for the boys" (and girls). As to the issue of having to go through 14 different agencies to do a basic sub-division of land. I go no further.!

I am etc.,

Joan Williams

greatestj@hotmail.com

Kingston