YOU have to applaud the deep thought and the hard work that went into last week’s article by the Chamber of Commerce vice president headlined ‘Beware the price of competition’.

It was a masterly examination of the problems faced by a small community that needs to promote competition while at the same time being aware of the social consequences, particularly in terms of job losses.

I’m now waiting for the sequel – what can we do about it? Unfortunately the Chamber vice-president was not able to clarify the options facing us. Had he done so we could all have engaged in a productive debate about them. Perhaps he didn’t think it was his job to come up with solutions. After all, that should be the politicians’ job, but they are obviously too busy.

But in an island where weak government is not only a scourge, but also a source of pride for some people, any contribution to a real debate is to be welcomed. It might even get us closer to the solutions.

The real problem, of course, is that the arguments put forward by the Chamber vice-president were often contradictory, and diametrically opposed to the commercial principles espoused by the august organisation that he represents.

For example, it’s interesting that the only politician mentioned (and even praised) in the vice-president’s article was the ‘lefty’ who is often a thorn in the side of the States establishment. When you get so-called rabble rousers and so-called pillars of the community singing from the same song sheet, then it’s not surprising that the discordant results get some of us confused.

The crux of the vice-president’s argument appears to be that States-owned organisations, such as Jersey Water, Jersey Post, Jersey Telecom and Jersey Airport shouldn’t be in a position where they have to lay off staff and add to the (still very modest) levels of unemployment.

The managements of these organisations have a social responsibility to consider the impact on society of these actions, as well as the effect on the bottom line. He therefore finds it disconcerting that there is a ‘lack of debate as to the social cost to our society of all this collateral damage’.

I can only agree with the need for more debate on this issue, as well as many other ignored issues of vital importance to the Island, but perhaps we need to be clear about what it is we are supposed to be debating.

The vice-president says that States-owned organisations not only provide jobs, they also offer many other benefits, ranging from sponsorship of music festivals to keeping open country sub- post offices. But this is threatened because ‘they have been brought face to face with the harsh reality of competition’.

So what is the vice-president suggesting? That they should not face the harsh realities of competition?

That would be a peculiar stance for the representative of an organisation that obviously appreciates the economic benefits of competition. It would also call for interference in the marketplace by government, which would be way in excess of what the Chamber would normally find acceptable.

Incidentally, the vice-president points out that organisations like Jersey Water and Jersey Airport suffer from having to provide ‘an infrastructure that in terms of cost is hugely disproportionate to the population they serve’. Let’s hope Chamber officers, past and present, remember that the next time they come to complain about the huge sums needed to run the Island.

No, I’m afraid the vice-president has merely done a good job in highlighting the problems and the inconsistencies, while not helping us to find a way through. For example, he obliquely criticises the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority, which he said ‘burned their way through £750,000 in wages and a cool £114,241 in consultancy fees’ last year. Yet nowhere in the article, which is supposed to be about competition, is there any mention of efficiency.

The aim of the JCRA is to ensure sufficient competition so that organisations run as efficiently as possible. Allowing bloated organisations to remain bloated, even if they do sponsor music festivals, is not much good to the economy or the public. After all, we are all consumers as well as members of society, as the Chamber obviously knows.

The JCRA’s job is not just to promote competition at all costs. It’s to promote the right level of competition. It’s a difficult job (that’s why it costs a lot of money) and they might get it wrong on occasions. That’s something that can be debated, but surely the argument about their role has been concluded.

So perhaps one way through the problems highlighted in the article is to appreciate that efficient organisations can achieve much more – and therefore contribute more in the long run – than inefficient ones. This applies to States-owned organisations as much as any private sector company. The JCRA’s role is to promote that efficiency through competition.

Secondly, we should also appreciate that it’s up to the managers of those companies to manage. If the States, as owner, doesn’t like what they are doing, it has got the same remedies available as any shareholder. But they are unlikely to intervene to save jobs if those jobs are redundant. To do so would be to promote inefficiency at the expense of the taxpayer and the consumer.

Thirdly, perhaps the role of the States as owner of these organisations needs clarifying. As I’ve said before, the managements need to know what the States expects of them. Is it to keep people in employment when there is no commercial rationale to do so? Is it to provide the States with the biggest possible dividend achievable? Or are there other benefits the States expect their commercial operations to provide?

One thing we can all agree about. The vice-president of the Chamber of Commerce is quite right to call for more debate. However, perhaps the States is trying to avoid it. After all these things are never as easy as they seem.