Just yesterday, this newspaper broke the story that Cabinet had consented to an increase in certain fees charged by the National Conservation Commission, and the introduction of fees in instances where none existed for the use of its parks and other spaces for specific purposes.
Given the pressure so many businesses and individuals face across this country as a result of the underperforming economy, it would not have been unusual to hear people cry out: “Not again!” After all, we are in an environment so often characterised by fresh impositions.
Quite interestingly, however, we had a reaction from one of the island’s most recognised show promoters, Al Gilkes, in effect saying it would be unreasonable to complain about the increase in fees for the use of Farley Hill National Park from $8 000 for a show to $12 000.
If we can interpret his response, it would have to be that he was suggesting the NCC was being unfair to itself by charging just $8 000 for the use of the venue for these mega shows.
Quite frankly, we also do not believe that it is unreasonable to charge a couple wishing to use the park exclusively for their wedding a fee of $3 000, given that reserving any comparable commercial venue, if one can be found, would cost several thousand dollars more.
But it raises for us a larger issue: How do State agencies arrive at the fees they charge for goods and services? We wonder, for example, how an agency like the National Petroleum Corporation can survive while charging its thousands of residential customers between $5 and $15 per month for natural gas.
Could it really be that that is all it costs the corporation to supply the commodity? Are commercial users being charged rates that subsidise gas used by residential customers? We do not advocate increasing fees for the sake of it, but when customers are charged less than the true cost of a good or service someone else still pays.
In the case of the NPC, this is particularly glaring because many of its customers are at the higher end of the socio-economic scale, while by contrast a significant number of the poorest Barbadians who struggle to gas stations for a “bottle of LPG” must fork out a minimum of $40 – and for many it will hardly last a month.
Again we have the long-running situation of the Transport Board which never has enough money to meet its commitments, yet must charge a bus fare that is significantly less than what it costs to provide each ride. Again, others pay for the inefficiency that results from this type of operation.
It really is time for state agencies providing services to let Barbadians know just what the services cost, even if at the national level the Government determines, for socio-economic reasons, that it will charge a lower figure at the point of delivery.
There are clearly valid reasons for subsidising bus fares, rents and other similar services for the poor, but there is a raft of other fees charged by Government agencies for which there can be no valid reason for demanding anything less than the true economic cost.
