LAST week the annual debate organised by the Jersey branch of the Institute of Directors examined the issue of public-private partnerships, joint initiatives involving government and the private sector.

Perhaps predictably, the 450 people who filled the Great Hall at the Hotel de France to listen to the debate indicated – by raising ‘pour’ or ‘contre’ cards – that the public-private principle appealed to them. After all, the bulk of the audience was composed of business people of one sort or another.

However, the excellent main speeches of the evening, given by public-private proponent Senator Freddie Cohen and opposer Senator Francis Le Gresley, plus commentary from experts on the panel, offered plenty of food for thought.

Senator Cohen highlighted the many advantages of shared funding on shared projects, Senator Le Gresley pointed to potential problems with the structure, and the experts, Nicholas Tott and Dr Timothy Stone, filled in the fine detail.

Many of those present might have been inclined to overlook Senator Le Gresley’s reservations because of fundamental but not always realistic faith in the idea that the private sector infallibly does it better, but the States would do well to look carefully before they leap further forward to private-public partnerships in the light of less than happy experiences that have been encountered elsewhere.

As Senator Le Gresley explained, some joint projects have amounted to licences for developers to print money over an extended period at the taxpayer’s expense. Also, there can be labour market distortions, including adverse impacts on the terms and conditions of workers and loss of work for small firms.

But in spite of potential public-private pitfalls, there can be no question of ruling them out for Jersey – not least because in the shape of recent work at Durrell and the Jersey Hospice we have examples of the structure working very well indeed, if on a small scale.

That said, forewarned is forearmed. Through being aware that public-private initiatives can go wrong, favour the private element disproportionately, or lead to unintended consequences, our public sector could well benefit greatly from working more closely with private enterprise.

The point is that this must not be done either casually or experimentally. It must involve very careful planning, watertight contracts and expert advice of the highest calibre. Proceeding on any less calculated basis could be a recipe for disaster.