Alarm bells ringing over C&E decision

That the funding is not there to look into a matter of serious public interest under the competition law leads to many questions and, at the moment, not enough robust answers.

Commerce and Employment does not want to write a blank cheque, neither should it, but in these instances who is best placed to judge whether the investigation should happen – a political board or the head of a regulator which is meant to have independence from government?

This situation betrays just how that independence quickly crumbles. C&E determines the regulator's budget – and it used the regulator's merger with Jersey as a reason to slash what annual funding was originally intended for it. In doing so it effectively dictates what work the regulator can or cannot do.

Worse still is the fact that in this case it is a public contract, leading to the perception, however unfairly, of a vested interest.

Concerns about States procurement procedures have circulated for some time. One of the benefits of an investigation could be to highlight any shortcomings in these procedures – that could have long-term savings for the public well beyond this one subject.

This situation creates the impression of a department, despite its insistence otherwise, paying lip-service to the competition law which it was so keen to champion.

As has been shown with the Pfos legal action, cases can be expensive and there is no guarantee of success. But any case brought under the competition law will face these factors by the very nature of what is involved – the public was led to expect so much more when the department was supporting the legislation.

Commerce and Employment did not trouble Treasury with this matter, which, given its nature, is a curious decision. This will be an issue the next Assembly will have to return to in one way or another. The regulator is obviously still keen to pursue this matter. All the time, though, the clock is ticking and with it the odds of a successful outcome become longer.