Editorial | Is there an end to red tape?

We have heard the pleas, over and over, for government to cut the red tape and become more efficient and business-friendly. Successive administrations have acknowledged the problem and given their commitment to lift administrative burdens in the regulatory environment so businesses can thrive.

Usually, the calls come from members of the public and the business sector, but, lately, a member of the political elite has joined the chorus. Pearnel Charles Jr, confronted with the reality that it took two years to procure two tractors for the Rural Agricultural Development Authority, had this to say: “We have to break down the barrier that is holding back our efficiency,” even as he acknowledged that, as minister, he ought to be able to do something about it. Can he? Will he? Are any of his colleagues even listening?

Yet, another important voice has been added to the debate. Dr Damien King, chairman of Recycling Partners of Jamaica (RPJ), recently went public with the frustrations the RPJ has faced in trying to procure lands to expand depots for collecting the environmentally unfriendly plastic bottles so popular in the food trade. Dr King cited the long wait for approvals and the challenge of starting over again when the land was taken over by another department.

Both Mr Charles and Dr King were quick to point out that bureaucracy is not a bad thing. We agree that bureaucracy can be helpful in providing the necessary organisation for agencies of government as they try to coordinate various services. However, if not properly handled, red tape can erect barriers between the public and the public services on which they rely.

BACK SEAT

When red tape takes over, discretion tends to take a back seat. We have seen how it works. There is endless paperwork to fill out, decisions take forever to be ratified, and many of the steps required are unnecessary and redundant and lead to frustration. These many layers of approval that are required create opportunities, for the void is inevitably filled by the ‘fixer’ who employs corrupt means to get things done expeditiously.

To be fair, specific agencies have been praised over the years for approximating the kind of customer-friendly service that citizens yearn to experience. These include the National Housing Trust, the Pensions Branch of the Ministry of Social Security, and the Passport, Immigration and Citizenship Agency (PICA). Customers have publicly testified about their efficiency. There is also the sterling work of the Public Sector Transformation Programme which was designed to produce a lean and efficient public service.

With these examples, the Government has demonstrated that it has a template which can be successfully modelled by other agencies. However, we see no evidence that best practice in business friendliness is being applied generously in other areas of government.

But it’s not just government. Take the light and power company, Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS), which has been collecting land titles from customers in order to connect them to the grid. Is this really necessary and what does the JPS do with this information? We understand that a prospective customer needs to be properly identified, but what does it matter if he owns, rents or leases premises? If he pays his bill on time and in full, that should be all that matters.

Here, too, we must mention the banks. In many business-friendly jurisdictions it is now possible to open a bank account online without having to supply recommendations and references. In Jamaica, the requirements to open a bank account are more onerous than submitting for a job interview. Getting a loan from the bank can take many months.

Red tape is costly – to businesses and the consumers. The great puzzle is that the Holness administration has not taken the requisite steps to give this matter the priority it deserves.