Competition controllers come at a high price to all

I certainly don’t intend to repeat all Mr Warr’s views, but he did disclose some rather interesting information regarding the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority – a body which, like personnel departments and other growth industries such as social work and counselling, has managed to conceal its true functions from this simple country boy.

According to Mr Warr, the JCRA was established in 2001 to champion the cause of consumers. Quite how its display of pygmy grandeur in fining the German national airline Lufthansa because its permission wasn’t sought to take over a British regional airline which happens to use Jersey Airport every once in a while furthers the cause of the Jersey consumers is open to considerable question.

Much the same can be said of the authority’s decision to licence two other businesses to allegedly compete with the Island’s postal service. I say allegedly because according to Mr Warr, these licensees are permitted to cherry-pick profitable parts of Jersey Post’s business without having to work under the restraints of a Universal Service Obligation – a burden which forces Jersey Post to provide a level of service that cost it £5m last year.

But the thing which really intrigued me was Mr Warr’s observations on the regulatory authority’s finances. According to him, the JCRA’s income of £1.15 million in 2008 came mostly from fees paid by the utilities which are either wholly or majority owned by taxpayers. In other words, there’s an element of paper or book transactions in all this – something which leads this bolshie little crapaud to suggest that in this respect, shuffling cheques between what are virtually States departments doesn’t do a great deal for consumers or taxpayers other than cost them money.

However, the sting in the tail comes when we realise that, as Mr Warr put it, as well as being ‘sponsored’ by the Economic Development Department, the JCRA ‘burned their way through £750,000 in wages and a cool £114,241 in consultancy fees’, the latter being a commodity which no minister or hired help can be seen not to make full use of these days.

Mr Warr said that the authority proudly claim their activities have saved consumers £12.5m. He goes on to observe: ‘One States department being sponsored by another States department, in turn monitoring the activities of other States-owned utilities, and all paid for by you and me, the taxpayer, does make one wonder where exactly the £12.5m savings are actually being made and for whose benefit.’

It certainly does, Mr Warr. And it is not those made redundant (with impeccable timing just before Christmas) by the very utilities to which Mr Warr referred.

But, as my old granny might have said had she lived to witness this nonsense, what do you expect when the bloke in charge of the biscuit tin under the bed where all the States loot is stashed is Philip Ozouf – a man who I often think aspires to be the patron saint of competition, no matter what its knock-on effects are, ably assisted by some even more fervent disciples at the JCRA itself.

I used to think that Jimmy Perchard was a sensible young bloke, and when he finally resigned, after displaying a good deal of stubbornness, I have to say, as Health Minister over his unwise comments in the Big House to Stuart Syvret, I felt that he had taken the only sensible course of action open to him.

Perhaps that’s why I groaned inwardly when I saw that he had seen fit to lob in his tuppence-worth following the publication of the Chapman Report, which found that Senator Syvret had bullied and harassed States employees through his blog and via email.

I do not doubt that Senator Perchard will argue that he has the right to enter this particular fray. After all, he would contend that he is an elected representative of the public as well as being one of Senator Syvret’s targets. However, he knows that two wrongs will never make a right, and I have this feeling that instead of putting himself forward in calling for action against Senator Syvret to, as Senator Perchard put it, ‘right the injustice’, it would have been much wiser for him to have left that particular clarion call to one or more of the other elected representatives.

Discretion, as the old saying goes, is frequently the better part of valour, and it would have been much more discreet of Senator Perchard to hold his peace and let his silence do the talking. The fact that he has not is a mite foolish, to say the least. After all, he didn’t exactly cover himself in glory in the first place, did he?

I have to say that I was puzzled by the apparent criticism by the chairman of Amnesty International’s Jersey Group and (in support) by Wayne Le Cuirot of this newspaper’s coverage of the visit to the Island of the Chinese Ambassador.

I hold no more of a brief for China than I do for America in terms of the barbaric way in which they treat some of their citizens. However, it was open to both Amnesty International and Mr Le Cuirot to make their representations through their elected representatives before the Ambassador’s visit instead of giving me the impression that they think others must be criticised for not doing it for them.

AND finally … a pat on the back for St Martin Constable Silva Yates in his quest to provide affordable homes for his parishioners. I wonder how many of his opponents live in the last ‘village’ plan near the ambulance cadet headquarters?