Independent Deputies

[Carolyn Labey]

The old puddleducks didn't loose out, they didn't tender for the service. That is the bottom line which Sean and others seem to over look.

Perhaps Sean should discribe, in detail to readers, what he means by a "paper hatchet job" and who performed such a thing. And in what authority he speaks of such matters, what qualifications has he in the field he professes to know much about? Or are we into the punchy little soundbites again that sound clever and mean nothing. 

Glad Sean has at least admitted that the crafts he recommended would have cost double to what JHT paid. And again that French connection crops up. There was enough flack over £500,000 investment, can you imagine if the JHT spent £1 million on the Rolls Royce crafts Deputy Power would have had them buy. Yes, you pays your money you takes your choice, and if Sean could suggest where JHT could have got the additional £500,000 from, i am sure the Director of JHT would be glad to here from him.

[Sean Power]

Carolyn,

You are avoiding the main issues.

These are:

1: Has the JHT acquisition of these American machines been successful and is JHT happy or content with the enabling of access to Elizabeth Castle ?  What are the running costs ?

2: Are you happy as the Assistant Minister for arts and culture to be involved in runaway costs on these two machines, when one has never left Bechet Lane in Trinity in almost five months ?

3: My reference to a paper hatchet job  means that another Department of the States wrote a hatchet job on the mechanical road reliability of the Puddle Dukws, when they had been utterly reliable. If I am re-elected, I will continue to deal with this. There is an issue here in that the road performance of these machines is regulated by one Department and the marine operations by another department.  It would have been much easier to classify these machines as marine craft and avoid the road issues. They would then need to be accompanied on road trips for essential service as it was and has been for the past 30+ odd years at West-Park

4: I do not have a marine degree. However, I headed and worked with a small group ( naval, enginering, marine) that tendered for a contract with the US Army Corps Of Engineers (USACE) for an amphibious craft for civil use in emergencies, such as New Orleans, that met their standards. This was a Jersey funded project that went to the Pentagon and Congress. It was canned because of the Iraq invasion and subsequent priorities within USACE. This Jersey group still holds intellectual protection ( maybe still worthless) on the designs and has been approached in the past month because of the new direction the US will take on many issues.

4: the issue of the cost of the appropriate machines for use at West Park is simpler.  The American machines are using road going Volvo commercial truck equipment. Volvo brakes, steering and suspension. These components are NOT designed to be immersed in salt water 10 times a day. If one factors in the sand and gravel mix agitated by spinning wheels at half tide, when the machine is 50/50 floating and wheel based, then one gets an idea that this the most hostile environment to metal, machine, bearings and water ingress to critical road axle based specification.

Before I go to 5, my view is that JHT do not take access to Elizabeth Castle seriously and therefore access to the Castle.

5:  My colleague Carolyn has suggested in a negative way that my solution would cost double the cost of the two American machines they have bought. 

6:I agree ! However, JHT may not have to pay for it 100%.

7:Given the hostile environment of sand gravel and the the standards required on surviveability afloat, I repeat my recommendation that they follow the French model of an aluminium marine grade hull that does not have to be painted, hydrostatic drive and suspension with a hull that is subdivided with longitudional stiffening. The hull would then be divided into at least 20 watertight compartments dependent on length. The stability of the hull must ensure that it would stay stable and upright for at least 30 minutes.

These machines have an operational life of about 25 years.

The 1st problem with you Carolyn and Mike Vibert is that you had crap advice, even though you had the warning signs from me and Kevin Lewis.

the 2nd problem is that you continue to deny that you made the wrong decision.

Sean

[boatyboy]

Deputy Labey,

I hope you don't mind if I come in and offer some facts. Lets start at the beginning.

Sean Power did make an offer of very expensive craft, which was rejected. That was the prerogative of the management of the time. If its to expensive don't purchase it. Which is fine.

I truly believe that you have not been privileged to some of the facts relating to the Puddleducks.

You are correct the owner's did not want to continue after nine years. With the help and agreement of the Jersey Heritage Trust they put out advertising to sell the business. Three potential buyers came forward.  This became one very keen buyer as one could not raise funds the other just fell away.

At the same time Pure Adventure came on the scene, wanted the Castle run and a whole lot more.They did not want to purchase the puddleducks.

Your Senior Management at JHT Jon Carter and Nick Danby had an ambitious plan hand in hand with Pure Adventure. It was heavily supported by Mr Muir head of the traffic office.

Puddleducks did not stand a chance, why ?

Please click the hyperlink below.

http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,585.msg7824.html#msg7824

Boatyboy.

[Fritz]

Bottom line is, tax-payers money shouldn,t have been spent on any vehicles.
 It should have been left open for a private investor to provide the service if there was a market for it.

[The Rev Peter Sarkey]

Bottom line is, tax-payers money shouldn,t have been spent on any vehicles.
 It should have been left open for a private investor to provide the service if there was a market for it.

So, what you are saying Fritz is that in your opinion, good taxpayers money should never have been wasted on this project and that the two deputies who are arguing over childish point scoring were actually both in agreement to waste taxpayers money unnecessarily?

[Fritz]

More or less.

[Carolyn Labey]

Fritz you have hit the point re a private investor should be running the service "if there was a market for it". Since there drop in visitor numbers to the Island - there isn't.

So JHT have a monument situated in the middle of the sea during half the day, and they also have a contract with the States via ESC to open heritage sites to the public. So when all other operators gave up, they had an obligation to run the service themselves to fulfill their obligations to the States. If someone could suggest to me how they were to do that without purchasing crafts i would be happy to hear from them.

Sean has made it perfectly clear he doesn't like the crafts chosen. He would have prefered JHT to spend over a million pounds on a rolls royce version from a company he happens to know in France.

He claims they are not worthy of the route. i cannot comment as i am not a marine engineer - but neither is he. What i do know is that the Maritime Coastguard Agency (who are marine engineers) and Jersey Harbours checked and tested the vehicles and deemed them sea worthy and safe for passengers. They then issued them with a licence to operate, as did DVS when they tested them for causeway and road use. Isn't it odd that Sean doesn't pose his technical questions to any of these 3 authorities.

There is a craft stationed at Le Bechet because only one is needed in the shoulder months.   

[jez strickland]

What ever happened to the children's book that featured the Jersey Puddle Ducks? What a shame Pure went for their lame ducks.

Would it have been possible for JHT to operate the route themselves using existing crew, and mechanics?

Could JHT have leased the DUKW's instead of purchasing them outright?

On what technicalities would the old DUKW's have failed their certification, and would it have been feasible to remedy this?

[Sean Power]

Hi,

I must say that my view to-night is that Carolyn and I will never agree.

If you buy a Yugo, you get Yugo, you get all that a Yugo delivers. If you buy a G-wagon, you get what you pay for.

QED.

Sean

[boatyboy]

Deputy Labey

I have no problem with Sean Power trying to sell amphibious vehicles to anyone, just as anyone has the right to refuse.

The problem is, you have a passion for culture, as have the other trustees at JHT. Would you please take off the rose tinted glasses and have a look at the facts?

The three man sub committee that was set up to report back to the board, on the subject of the Puddleducks and the Elizabeth Castle route. Really messed up rather badly. Their over ambitious business plan ( in a falling market ) showed they were completely out of their depth, but somehow convinced the rest of the board, including yourself.
 
The other person who messed up badly was Mike Vibert, he should have ordered a completely independent report when the public approar started. No Heritage was asked to report on themselves ? Heritage Directors had a funding meeting for 2009, in the summer of 2008. Minister Mike Vibert to his credit, refused point blank to give them the extra half million pounds they wanted.

The two senior civil servant figures of JHT,  Jon Carter and Nick Danby plus one of your board, Mr Crill were the sub committee to advice the board of Trustees. The report is signed off by the Trust members, however it is a rambling, self denial of a job badly done and wast of public money. It still offers enough information, to clearly show that the public got their financial fingers burnt, when a loss making business was purchased for £500,000 and the cost is still growing.

Please would it be possible to answer a couple of questions, may I ask again ?

Why has JHT taken all its old accounts off the internet, while refurbishing its web site and not kept up to date by installing all its yearly accounts for the public to view ?

As the public purse has put in a lot more than £1.9 million per annum into Heritages funds. JHT is being discourteous to its benefactors. Why are JHT afraid of by being transparent?

All quotes are green for clarity : from yourself and government documents.

A better service than what Sean? The old crafts who's company refused to sign a service agreement and could have pulled out mid-season as they threatened to do when they told JHT the crafts had been sold.

page 9

Discussions with Puddleducks Limited did not progress any further and they continued to provide a service throughout the 2004, 2005 and 2006 seasons, without any formal documentation.

It should be stressed that Jersey Heritage was content with this informal, although less than ideal, arrangement because the service provided by Puddleducks Limited worked well and enabled Jersey Heritage to fulfil its obligations under the usufruct and meet the expectations of the public.

You Said
 
The old puddleducks didn't loose out, they didn't tender for the service. That is the bottom line which Sean and others seem to over look.

page 11

A number of individuals informally expressed some interest in operating the service, with one considering using a vessel other than the existing DUKWs.

Only 3 potential operators expressed interest. Two were considering purchasing the Puddleducks Limited vessels, a third proposed purchasing new vessels built in the United States.

6. December 2006: the decision to award the contract to Pure Adventure Jersey Limited

The Jersey Heritage ‘working group’ interviewed the 2 remaining applicants on 10th December 2006.

The 2 tenders differed in their approach but not substantially in price. Both tenders represented an increase in cost to Jersey Heritage compared to the Puddleducks Limited operation, and simply reflected the fact that both applicants needed an increase in revenue to pay for the capital investment in vessels, whether buying the old craft from Puddleducks Limited or investing in new vessels, as well as achieving a reasonable profit.

Pure Adventure’s bid appeared the more attractive. certain business synergies could be achieved. In particular they offered to sell tickets for the castle ferry and admission tickets to the castle from the purpose-built ticket kiosk they intended building at West Park. Jersey Heritage would collect all takings but would save £25,000 p.a. in staff and other costs. At interview their presentation was carefully thought out and professionally organised.

An independent report would probably have shown figures, JHT reporting on themselves chose not to, so there are no comparisons.

Puddleducks sold tickets for the castle and the transport to the castle, so no change, this is a red herring. Pure, By basing their watersports business at West Park. The sub committee forgot to ask to view the books of this business, to see if it was in profit.  It was not and no longer operates.

Also in the report,

page 9 (again)

Jersey Heritage considered offering a subsidy. However, Jersey Heritage was already under severe financial pressure and was contemplating major cuts in services in order to balance its budget. A subsidy would only exacerbate these difficulties.

page 11

When the licence was put out to competitive tender, the lowest overall bid came from Pure Adventure Jersey Ltd. The price, averaging £250,000 p.a. over the 5 year term of the contract, exceeded the amount that could be raised from paying passengers by around £100,000 per annum.

This is completely unrealistic, Deputy Labey, you say, tourist figures continue to fall, so why take on a subsidy of a qtr. of a million. If Pure adventure provided a service, and, due to poor weather castle visits dropped further, they would still need paying (£250,000). Puddleducks and its new operators were said to be far more expensive. No figures appear in the report to substantiate this. Its really starting to get completely illogical now.

page 47

Carolyn

Were you aware that JHT is also a bank, although it claims above to be under  "severe financial pressure"

page 47

Agreement by the board of trustees on the 29th October 2007 to make further loans to Pure Adventure up to £51,405.00 including a guarantee to customs the following day.

To quote you again if I may Carolyn

if there was a market for it". Since there drop in visitor numbers to the Island - there isn't.

So JHT have a monument situated in the middle of the sea during half the day, and they also have a contract with the States via ESC to open heritage sites to the public. So when all other operators gave up,

They did not give up Carolyn, see above, your sub committee messed up by giving Pure the contract, and I suppose through extension so did the Board of Jersey Heritage Trust.

To make matters worse, rather than leaving the liabilty with them, Heritage bought the craft ? but it wasen't your money or I suggest, Heritages perogative.

You are correct in that the boats were surveyed both as boats and land vehicles. I suppose nobody thought to seek references or refer back to operators, its called research. Its what businesses are usually good at. Pure obviously did no research but found out quickly through breakdowns that the equipment was not up to the job. They just needed to sell them on quickly before the truth got out.

The wording in the States contract to manage historic monuments, places more of an obligation and contains a lot of flexibility, should you decide to read the document.

Given the choice between closing the maternity ward ( for example) or mothballing a loss making castle, I know how the CoM would vote.

Sean Power and every member of the States, has every right to ask how public money is being spent. In fact I suggest it come's with the job

Boatyboy.

Sorry almost forgot

Amphibious vessels: purchase for use on the West Park to Elizabeth Castle route –      briefing report

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/reports/9554-49938-872008.htm

[tonytheprof]

One way round the JHT totally paying for a puddle-duck service would be a subsidised service, where they pay a fixed subsidy  - that way (a) they do not have the full cost of maintaining, operating, employing people - so money is actually saved (b) it is economically viable for a private operator to tender for the contract.

The business principle here is already in practice by the States - e.g. Connex. Obviously a smaller scale operation would not be as costly! But it could still be a lot better than running the whole show themselves.