States Minutes 3rd February 2004

THE STATES assembled on Tuesday, 3rd February 2004 at 9.30 a.m. under the Presidency of the Bailiff ,

Sir Philip Bailhache .

His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor,

Air Chief Marshal Sir John Cheshire, K.B.E., C.B., was present

All members were present with the exception of –

S e nator Terence Augustine Le  Sueur – out of the Island

K e nneth Priaulx   Vibert , Connétable of St.  Ouen–  ill

A l an Simon Crowcroft , Connétable of St.  Helier – ill

J o hn Benjamin Fox, Deputy of St.  Helier – out of the Island J e nnifer-Anne Bridge, Deputy of St.  Helier – ill

G e offrey John Grime, Deputy of St.  Mary – out of the Island.

Prayers

Tribute to the late Jurat Philip Francis Misson, former Viscount

The Bailiff paid tribute to the late Jurat Philip Francis Misson, former Viscount and officer of the States. THE STATES observed one minute's silence as a mark of respect.

Subordinate legislation tabled

The following enactment was laid before the States, namely –

Community  Provisions  (Prohibiting  the  Sale,  Supply  and  Export  of  Certain R&O 8/2004. Equipment to, and Freezing the Funds of Certain Officials of, Burma/Myanmar)

(Amendment No.  2) (Jersey) Order 2004.

Employment and Social Security Committee – resignation of member

THE STATES noted the resignation of Deputy Jeremy Laurence Dorey of St.  Helier from the Employment and Social Security Committee.

Matters presented

The following matters were presented to the States –

Draft Burials and Exhumations (Jersey) Law 200- (P.170/2003): comments. P.170/2003. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information: Register of Reports P.196/2003. (P.196/2003) – comments. Com.(2)

Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information: Register of Reports P.196/2003/ (P.196/2003) – comments. Com.(3) Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Bus  Strategy:  Connex  contract  supporting  documentation  with  reference  to R.C.4/2004. Questions of the President.

Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

THE STATES ordered that the said reports be printed and distributed. Matters noted – acceptance of tender

THE STATES noted an Act of the Finance and Economics Committee dated 28th January 2004, showing that, in pursuance of Rule  5 of the Public Finances (General) (Jersey) Rules 1967, as amended, the Committee had noted that the Education, Sport and Culture Committee had accepted the lowest tender received for the proposed development of a two-form entry primary school to replace the existing La Pouquelaye School, St.  Helier – namely that submitted by Camerons Limited in the sum of £4,874,243 in a contract period of 70 weeks.

Matters lodged

The following matters were lodged "au Greffe" –

Draft Animal Welfare (Jersey) Law 200- (P.126/2003): amendments. P.126/2003. Presented by Deputy of St. Martin, and referred to the Finance and Economics Amd. Committee.

Draft Police Force (Amendment No.  10) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.9/2004): P.9/2004. amendment. Amd. Presented by the Deputy of St.  Martin.

Projet de Loi (200-) (Amendement No.  10) réglant la procédure criminelle. P.13/2004. Presenté par le Comité de Législation.

Environment and Public Services Committee: vote of no confidence. P.14/2004. Presented by Senator E.P.   Vibert .

Jersey Child Care Trust: appointment of Chairman. P.15/2004. Presented by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

Income Tax: allowance for children over 17 in full-time education. P.16/2004. Presented by Deputy of St. Martin, and referred to the Finance and Economics

Committee.

Building a safer society. P.17/2004. Presented by the Home Affairs Committee.

Shadow Public Accounts Committee: appointment of Member. P.18/2004. Presented by Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St.  Brelade.

Le  Squez and part of Le  Marais Estate, St.  Clement: redevelopment. P.19/2004. Presented by the Housing Committee, and referred to the Finance and Economics

Committee.

Fairtrade Island. P.20/2004. Presented by Senator J.A. Le  Maistre, and referred to the Environment and Public

Services Committee.

Housing Committee: vote of no confidence. P.21/2004. Presented by Deputy G.P. Southern of St.  Helier.

Château La Chaire, Rozel, St. Martin: use of public funds. P.22/2004. Presented by the Deputy of St.  John, and referred to the Economic Development

Committee.

Building a safer society' – P.12/2004 – withdrawn

THE STATES noted that in accordance with Standing Order 22(3), the President of the Home Affairs Committee had  instructed  the  Greffier  of  the  States  to  withdraw  the  proposition  regarding Building  a  safer  society', (P.12/2004 lodged "au Greffe" on 27th January 2004), the Committee having lodged a revised proposition at the present meeting.

Arrangement of public business for the next meeting on 17th February 2004

THE STATES confirmed that the following matters lodged "au Greffe" would be considered at the next meeting on 17th February 2004, having agreed that these should be taken in the following order –

Environment and Public Services Committee: vote of no confidence. P.14/2004. Lodged: 3rd February 2004.

Senator E.P.   Vibert .

Housing committee: vote of no confidence. P.21/2004. Lodged: 3rd February 2004.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier.

Public and Private Sector Housing Rental Subsidy Schemes: income disregard – P.5/2004. rescindment.

Lodged: 20th January 2004.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier.

Benefits paid by the Housing and Employment and Social Security Committees: P.116/2003. protection.

Lodged: 29th July 2003.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier.

Benefits paid by the Housing and Employment and Social Security Committees: P.116/2003. protection (P.116/2003) – comments. Com. Presented: 23rd September 2003.

Employment and Social Security Committee.

Benefits paid by the Housing and Employment and Social Security Committees: P.116/2003. protection (P.116/2003) – comments. Com.(2) Presented: 23rd September 2003.

Housing Committee.

Benefits paid by the Housing and Employment and Social Security Committees: P.116/2003. protection (P.116/2003) – comments. Com.(3)

Presented: 18th November 2003. Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft The Law Society of Jersey Law 200-. P.154/2003. Lodged: 11th November 2003.

Legislation Committee.

Disability Benefit System: reform. P.178/2003. Lodged: 25th November 2003.

Employment and Social Security Committee.

Disability Benefit System: reform (P.178/2003) – comments. P.178/2003. Presented: 20th January 2004. Com. Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Drainage (Jersey) Law 200-. P.193/2003. Lodged: 16th December 2003.

Environment and Public Services Committee.

Draft Shipping (SOLAS) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.3/2004. Lodged: 20th January 2004.

Harbours and Airport Committee.

Draft Shipping (Load Line) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.4/2004. Lodged: 20th January 2004.

Harbours and Airport Committee.

Jersey Child Care Trust: appointment of Chairman. P.15/2004 Lodged: 3rd February 2004.

Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

A recent advertisement placed by the Health and Social Services Committee – question and answer (Tape No.  890)

The Deputy of St.  John asked Senator Stuart Syvret, President of the Health and Social Services Committee, the following question –

" W  ould the President inform members of the cost of the advertisement which was placed in the November 2003 issue of the Royal College of Nursing RCN Bulletin, and explain why the words with plenty of funds and no shortage of facilities' were used in the advertisement in view of the current States policy of financial restraint in the current economic climate?"

The President of the Health and Social Services Committee replied as follows –

" T he advertisement of November 2003 in the Royal College of Nursing Bulletin is part of a broader pro- active campaign developed in 2002 to ensure that Jersey is able to continue to attract quality nursing staff to the Island, in the face of serious competition and a world shortage of qualified nurses. This campaign replaces the previous strategy of placing individual adverts for individual vacancies and is considerably more cost effective than the former arrangements. In 2002, the cost of placing individual adverts for professional vacancies was £146,000. The campaign which now includes individual job vacancies within an overall promotion of Health and Social Services in Jersey as an attractive employer, reduced the annual advertising cost in 2003 to £90,000.

T  he campaign has been extremely successful in creating a continuous stream of prospective applications which, with the exception of certain specialist areas which continue to prove difficult, has greatly assisted in

ensuring continuity of a high quality nursing service for the Island. The reference to plenty of funds and no

shortage of facilities' was a direct quote from new recruits to the service who were interviewed during the development of the campaign in 2002 to elicit the attractive differences between working in Jersey in comparison with working in some parts of the U.K. National Health Service."

The bus service – questions and answers (Tape No. 890)

Senator Edward Philip Vibert asked Deputy Maurice François Dubras of St. Lawrence, President of th Environment and Public Services Committee, the following questions –

" 1  .(a)  Would the President inform members of the current position regarding the proposed States audit of the tender process leading up to the appointment of Connex?

(b ) W ould the president confirm that the proposed audit –

( i) h a s n o legal status and will simply examine correspondence between the Department and

their consultants and interested parties involved at the time?

( ii ) c a n o nly request examination of such documents and cannot investigate whether all the

documents have been produced?

(i i i) h a s n o power to call for documents from outside parties or take any action if such parties

refused to co-operate?

(i v )  w i ll b e assisted fully by the Department no matter how long the audit process takes?

( c) D oes the Committee intend to bring a report and proposition to the States calling for a public

enquiry into the tender process following the States audit?

2 . (a)   Will the President confirm the following extracts from a letter he sent to the Finance and

Economics Committee on 19th May 2003 –

(i ) a fter tenders were received and the contract was awarded to Connex, it came to light that the

TGWU had negotiated a substantial increase with Jersey Bus in the form of a shift allowance of £72 per week in addition to a cost of living increase';

(i i)   at no time during the tender process up to the award of the contract did the TGWU advise

the States, its consultants or all of the tenderers that such a substantial claim had been submitted';

(i ii ) t he Committee was outraged at the conniving that appears to have taken place between the

TGWU and Jersey Bus, in particular the complete silence from the TGWU during the tendering process on the extent of the wage claim'.

(b ) W ould the President inform members whether the Committee's consultants, Halcrow, exchanged

correspondence with Jersey Bus in advance of the tender process outlining the TGWU claim in full, and, if so, whether this information was passed on to all tenderers?

( c ) Would the President agree that what was stated in the letter to the Finance and Economics

Committee, as indicated by him in answer to questions on 9th December 2003, was misleading, and will he provide an apology to the owners of Jersey Bus, its executives and officials of the TGWU?

3 . W ould the President inform members whether an officer of the Department attended a meeting with representatives of Halcrow and Jersey Bus on 28th February 2003, at which the claim for a shift

allowance/pay award was discussed?

4 . ( a) W hen the Committee decided in May 2003, to pay an additional £187,000 to Connex on the

grounds that it was not aware that Jersey Bus had entered into a shift allowance/pay award agreement with the Union, did it seek the advice of its consultants, Halcrow, and, if not, could he explain the reasons why? If Halcrow's advice was sought, would the President inform members what that advice was?

(b ) W ould the President inform members whether the Committee –

(i ) w as aware that Connex had stated in its tender that "wage costs included the payment in full

of the 2002 wage award"?

(i i ) w as aware that the tender document made it very clear that it was up to the tenderers to

ensure that the information they were given was accurate and that "no claim from the contractor for additional payment will be allowed on the grounds of misinterpretation of any matters related to the contract documents on which the contractor could reasonably have satisfied itself?"

(i ii ) s ought legal advice on whether or not Connex had any legal right to the £187,000 extra paid

to it?

5 . W ould the President confirm whether the tenders submitted by Connex and Jersey Bus both included the

same provision for relief buses and payment of the shift allowance/pay award, and, if not, whether any difference was recognised during the tender process and whether any action will now be taken?

6 . W ould the President inform members of the amount paid by the Committee to transport consultants

Halcrow in the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, and whether the level of service received from this company during the tendering process was in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions?

7 . W ould the President confirm that the bus service from Elizabeth Terminal to St. Helier, which operated

from 1st June until 30th September 2003, carried only 8,690 passengers at a cost of£43,000, which works out at £5 per passenger, and would he advise members –

 ( a )  t he basis for the decision to run this service?

 ( b )  w hy it was allowed to run so long making such heavy losses?

( c ) w hether a demand study was run before putting the service in place? 8 . W ould the President –

( a ) confirm that the Public Services Department provided facilities at the PSD's Bellozanne

Workshops for the checking and preparation of Connex buses when they arrived in the Island in 2002, prior to their inspection by Driver and Vehicle Standards, and prior to awarding each bus its licence to operate on Island roads?

( b ) c onfirm that Connex received engineering and mechanical assistance by the Department in the

absence of their own being in place initially, and, if so, whether this had any implications for the work and staff commitments of the Department?

(c ) i nform members of the cost, to the States, if any, of – (i ) th e assistance provided;

(i i) t he bus equipment at La Collette garage;

(i ii )  f itting out No. 6 Gosset Chambers to provide offices for Connex at the Weighbridge; and,

(i v )  employing a private company to administer the bus pass scheme for pensioners and Health

Insurance Exemption holders?

9 . W ill the President confirm –

(a ) t hat the gap between fare revenue and operating costs for 2003 totalled £2,482,045 and that this

figure includes the fuel rebate plus all the items listed in the previous question, and , if not, what the final figure is?

(b ) t hat in 2001, Jersey Bus operated an almost identical service for a cost to the taxpayer of £710,000? (c ) w hether the Committee will be reviewing whether the Connex service represents value for money?

1 0 . (a) W ill the President confirm that he was present at a meeting with the Finance and Economics

Committee on 12th March 2001, in his capacity as a member of the Jersey Bus Strategy Steering Group, and that, at that time, it was estimated that fare revenue for the Island bus service was £3  million and that the new service would require£1,350,000 of public funding subsidy?

(b ) I n view of the fact that the Bus Report presented to the States on 9th December 2003, states that the

estimate for fare revenue was £2,500,000, would the President explain the discrepancy that exists between these two figures?

1 1 . Would the President confirm that the proposed cuts to the bus service are as a direct result of the need

for Connex to recoup the £187,000 in this year's operation?

1 2 . (i) W ould the President inform members whether, after a year of operation, the level of relief buses to

meet the tender requirements has now been quantified, and, if so, whether they will be provided both in the winter and summer from now on at no further cost to the taxpayer?

(i i) W ould the President inform members –

(a ) o f the level of relief buses required?

(b ) t he number of drivers' hours per week? and,

(c ) o f the total cost per week during the winter and summer timetables?

1 3 . Would the President inform members whether any public funds have been used in purchasing buses for

Connex or whether any arrangements have been entered into to assist Connex in the purchase of its vehicles?

1 4 . Would the President inform members –

(a ) w hether the bus contract between the Committee and Connex was not signed until December 2002,

even though the service began in September 2002, and, if so, the reasons for this? and,

(b ) w hy the Committee accepted Connex's claim that it did not know about the shift/pay allowance at

the time the contract was signed given that the Committee's Bus Report presented to the States on 9th December 2003, clearly stated that this was in fact known in May 2002?

1 5 . Would the President inform members whether any changes were made to the conditions of tender'

document when they were incorporated into the final contract with Connex, and, if so, what these were, who initiated them, and why they were made?

1 6 . Would the President inform members whether the cut in services, as detailed in the Committee's Bus

Report presented to the States on 9th December 2003, was as a result of passenger demand and, therefore, unrelated to the £187,000 shortfall experienced by Connex as a result of the shift/pay allowance?

1 7 . Would the President inform members of the basis of calculation of the £400,000 estimated loss of

revenue to the States incurred as a result of the Easy Link network, as detailed in the Committee's Bus Report presented to the States on 9th December 2003?

1 8 . (a) W ould the President inform members whether some school children who were previously taken to

school on a dedicated school bus service are now having to rely on scheduled services, and, if so, would he advise –

(i ) h ow many children are affected by this cut to the school bus service?

(i i ) w hether the children are being taken to the school or being dropped off at the nearest bus

stop?

(i ii )  w hether some of the children have to catch more than one bus to get to school? (i v )  whether some of the children have to catch buses earlier?

(v )  w hether some of the children get to school late?

(b ) W ould the President advise members whether the decision to effect this change was purely a cost-

cutting exercise rather than to improve the school bus service?"

The President of the Environment and Public Services Committee replied as follows –

" 1 . (a) T he Chief Internal Auditor has carried out an audit trail, (R.C.4, Annexe 1), of the files and paperwork at Public Services and provided by Halcrow, the Committee's consultant, relating to the bus drivers' shift allowance, for the period 1st January 2002, to 1st May, 2002. This was Stage 1 of the review and covered the period during which tenders were sought. The Chief Internal Auditor has now completed her work. Stage 2, looking at the related activities up to commencement of service at the end of September, is now being put in train.

( b ) ( i)  T  h e review has no formal legal basis.  However, it has been conducted by the Chief

Internal Auditor who also has a duty by direction of the Treasurer of the States, (see Article  10, Public Finance (Administration) (Jersey) Law 1967), to audit the accounts of every Committee and Department of the States of Jersey.  The review was considered to be an expeditious and cost-effective method of performing an investigation which would address the specific issue raised.  It has been undertaken in respect of specific terms of reference, (R.C.4, Annexe  2).

( ii ) T h e Department and the Consultants have co-operated fully. The Department has made

available all files related to the bus strategy and the Consultants have provided copies of all their relevant documents.

(i ii ) I c o nfirm this is the case but such powers are not expected to be required. (i v ) I c o n firm this is the case.

(c ) I believe a Committee of Inquiry into the whole tender process will be extremely time consuming and might not be the most appropriate approach. The Committee met yesterday to discuss the

options and is consulting its legal advisers to determine the most appropriate form of inquiry. It

will be greatly influenced by the outcome of Stage  2 of the investigation into the related activities, following the tender process, up to the commencement of service at the end of September 2002.

2 . ( a) I confirm that (i) to (iii) are extracts from a letter dated 19th May 2003, from myself to the

President of the Finance and Economics Committee, a copy of which letter was provided to Senator Vibert on 6th January 2004, (R.C.4, Annexe  3).

(b ) T he Consultants did indeed receive a copy of the TGWU's claim, dated 6th February 2002, by fax

sent by Jersey Bus, (R.C.4, Annexe  4), on 12th February 2002. This was 4 days after the origina date notified for issuing new tender information of 8th February 2002. The audit has confirmed that a copy of the claim letter dated 6th February 2002, faxed by Jersey Bus on 12th February 2002, was passed by the Consultants to and received by all tenderers as an attachment to Bulletin Number  2. However, the audit has also confirmed that there is no evidence of any fax, letter, e- mail or other method of correspondence regarding the shift allowance being received by the Department during the tender period.

(c ) I n light of the information that is now available, particularly the Jersey Bus fax of 12th February

2002, which only came to my attention on 11th December 2003, I accept that extract (a)(iii), above, in retrospect is not correct. I have written letters to the owners and directors of Jersey Bus and the TGWU apologising for any unnecessary distress that these comments may have caused.

3 .  The Consultants arranged a meeting with representatives of Jersey Bus to clarify aspects of the operator's

tender. This was one of a series of meetings with all five bidding organisations which, with the exception of the Jersey Bus meeting, took place in the U.K. The Director of Traffic and Transportation attended this meeting, with the Consultants' representative. The records of the meeting do not contain any specific details of the pay claim, particularly any explicit claim for a £72 per week shift allowance, and it appears it was not expressly discussed

4 . ( a) T he Committee did seek the Consultants' advice. The Consultants' advice in April 2003, was that

it would be reasonable for the States to meet the claim.

(b ) ( i) C  o nnex's tender had a statement that had a similar meaning to that stated by the Senator,

but not as quoted by him. I cannot confirm that all the members who have received the documentation were aware of the statement.

(i i) A s in (i), I cannot confirm that all members were aware of this clause. Nevertheless, this is

a standard type of clause in conditions of contract. However, in compliance with the wishes of the States when it approved the Bus Strategy, it was expected at the outset of the tendering process that the successful operator would be working in partnership with the States.

(i i i) T h e Committee has received legal and technical advice in respect of the matter set out in

the question posed. In light of recent disclosures, the Committee has revisited the issue and yesterday received further advice in relation to the legal position on the basis of the facts presently available. In Jersey, as in other jurisdictions, it is convention that Law Officers' advice is not released.

5 . A s Jersey Bus was the only organisation that had all the information on passenger demand throughout the year, only Jersey Bus could accurately provide for relief buses in its tender. Other tenderers, including Connex, could only use the information available, observation, investigation and their experience to estimate the level of provision. However, both these operators indicated using similar

numbers of vehicles and, within the bounds of tendering, the Consultants were satisfied that similar provision was made. It is not normal in a tender process for bidders to submit detailed breakdowns and calculations of their bids so it is not possible without obtaining these original verified calculations to confirm that both operators included the same wage rates, hours and other allowances. I have confirmed with Halcrow that the Consultants sought to ensure that all bidders had submitted reasonable compliant

tenders.  In  its  confidential  report  on  tenders,  the  Consultants  drew  attention  to  significant  variations  in

submissions from tenderers. It is my conclusion that the tender process was fair and comprehensive. Recent information will require the present Committee to investigate certain post-tender matters further.

6 .  F ees and expenses paid to Halcrow were as follows –

2001 £5,000.00 2002 £60,274.67 2003 £12,041.97 2004 nil to date

T h e s e rvices provided by the Consultants are in accordance with the proposal submitted by them in July

2001. Given the problems of administering the bus tender due to the lack of information from the previous operator that would normally have been available to bidders, in the opinion of those directly involved, the Consultants performed well during the tender period and up to commencement of the contract.

7 .  T he Harbour service operated from 1st June to 31st August 2003, and carried 8,690 passengers at a cost

of £43,023.

(a ) T he decision followed a specific request from Jersey Harbours, an agreement to share a proportion

of any losses by the Harbours and Airport Committee and followed longstanding calls from the Parish of St.  Helier, Centre Ville and the Bus Users Forum. It was considered opportune to provide  a  service  that  would  serve  new  housing  at  Albert  Walk  and  the  new  Waterfront development. It also presented an opportunity to encourage ferry passengers onto the Connex network.

(b ) T he service was experimental and reviewed several times by the Committee. Cancellation met with

resistance from Jersey Harbours and other interested parties. There are at least five services operated on the current scheduled network that have a higher cost per passenger.

(c ) T he service was agreed on the basis of passenger figures supplied by Jersey Harbours, and assessed

likely demand from the Waterfront complex and residents of Albert Walk. In the event, Albert Walk occupation was delayed and the Aquasplash was completed later than expected.

A n e w  f e r ry service from Normandy was expected, but the operators of the service suffered a

significant delay in delivery and licensing of the vessels.

8 .  ( a) Yes, I so confirm. Construction had been delayed on the new bus garage at La Collette. In the

interim,  the  most  practical  cost-effective  option  was  to  provide  short-term  facilities,  at Bellozanne, until such time as the facility at La Collette was ready for occupation.

(b ) A  ssistance from the Department's staff was paid for by Connex and, in the main, the work was

undertaken principally outside normal working hours with no effect on the existing commitments of the Department.

(c ) ( i) N  il . (i i) N i l .

( ii i) T h e cost of making Gosset Chambers habitable was £62,839. Until such time as the

facilities are available in the new Transportation Centre, the Committee is obliged to provide accommodation at the Weighbridge for public information, a crew room, lost property and site supervisor.

(i v ) T h e cost to the previous Committee of a private company administering the first issue of

concessionary passes was –

Administration costs £35,874 Publicity £11,402 Specialist printing costs and to £9,052 set up the concessionary system

to accommodate Smartcard

operation

  I t w a s a n e c e s s ar y cost because the previous operator had no database of pass-holders to

hand over. So, to ensure that concessionary travel could continue for eligible residents, it was  necessary  to  develop  a  completely  new system.  Staff  costs  associated  with  the distribution of passes at Parish Hall s and sorting the remainder for posting were borne by Connex.

9 .  ( a)  I confirm that the £2,482,045 quoted in Figure  1 in R.C.53/2003, (R.C.4 Annexe  5), consists of–

Basic annual contract payment £4,341,593 Claim for additional wages £186,802 Vehicle Registration Duty £27,500 Provision of Harbour Service £43,023 Total £4,598,918 Fare Income (£2,116,873) Net subsidy to passenger network £2,482,045

T h e a m  o u n t of fuel duty rebate for the period was £158,000. This is an amount forgone by the

States.

T h e a m  o u n ts of £62,839 for refurbishing Gosset Chambers and £56,328 for administering the new

concessionary passes are one-off costs that would have been incurred no matter who was the operator.

T a k in g a ll t h e figures together as requested produces a total of £2,759,212.

( b )  No.   In 2001, Jersey Bus provided a significantly reduced service with buses withdrawn on

Routes 2c, 6, 7a, 7b, 8b, 19, 20, 21 and 22 and using vehicles with an average fleet age of 12  years. Jersey Bus also intended to cut Route  4 but continued to run it when the Parish o Trinity agreed to underwrite the service. Figure  3 of R.C.53/2003, (R.C.4, Annexe  6), provides a much more like for like comparison.

(c ) T he assessment of value for money was made at the tender appraisal where the Connex bid was

considered to be the best value on a number of criteria of which cost was only one. Figure  4a of R.C.53/2003, (R.C.4, Annexe  7), confirms that the public bus network in Jersey, is provided with a  relatively  low  level  of  subsidy  compared  to  other  places  in  Britain.  The  Committee  will continue to review and assess the operation of the Connex service in the light of more recent information.

1 0 . (a)  N o. I was present a year later.

A s ex p l a in e d throughout last year, the Committee was inhibited in forecasting fare revenue by the

absence of hard up-to-date data. Therefore, those attending that meeting could only deal with the following estimates –

Amount to be paid to operator £4,350,000 Estimated income to Committee

From fares £2,500,000

From cash limits £460,000

£2,960,000 (£3,000,000) Estimated subsidy required £1,350,000

(b ) T he estimate of fare income for 2002-03, based on 1993 figures provided by Jersey Bus a number

of years ago, increased for inflation and then reduced to account for the drop in visitors over the intervening period, amounted to approximately £2.5 million as shown.

O t h er   in f o rm ation supplied by Jersey Bus, in 1998, has indicated that over 3  million passengers

were carried by Jersey Bus, each year.

A s s u m i ng   a n  average fare of £1 per trip, again would indicate that overall income, including

concessionary travel, would be of the order of £3 million.

1 1 . The operator when appointed was expected, after the first year's operation, to suggest improvements to

the network that would maximise the revenue collected, create more flexible timetables, a more integrated system of routes and reduce the overall level of subsidy. These were the broad objectives of the proposals submitted by the operator in November last year.

1 2 . (i) C onnex have provided the relief services that experience has dictated are necessary in the first

year of the contract, and remain able to show flexibility if demand were to alter. Relief services are not a further cost to the taxpayer over and above normal contract payments.

(i i) T he operational details of what is required are the responsibility of Connex and are not of specific

concern to my Committee unless there is concern from the travelling public. Consequently the information requested by Senator   Vibert is not readily available to me and would in any case likely be considered by the operator as commercially sensitive and confidential.

1 3 . Other than the normal contractual payments to Connex for providing the bus service, which clearly

includes provision of suitable vehicles, no further public funds have been used to purchase buses or assist Connex in purchasing vehicles.

1 4 . (a)  T he following table provides the milestone dates.

1st May 2002

10th June 2002

18th September 2002

29th September 2002 2nd October 2002 12th December 2002

Connex advised it was preferred operator.

Letter of Intent issued to Connex.

Omnibus Service Licences signed by Greffier and issued to Connex.

Connex begin as operator

Contract formally signed. (R.C.4, Annexe 8)

Bound contract document signed. (All Appendices now bound together with Conditions of Contract.)

(b ) C onnex received a letter from Jersey Bus on 27th June 2002, (R.C.4, Annexe  9),containing details

of the wage agreement and the additional shift allowance, between Jersey Bus and its drivers. The previous Committee believed that the shift allowance had been agreed after Connex was selected as preferred operator on 1st May 2002. The terms of the agreement were confirmed when Connex received the letter from Jersey Bus on 27th June 2002.

1 5 . There is no conditions of tender' document. I assume that the Senator is referring to the Conditions of

Contract that were issued as a part of the tender documents, revised during the tender period and subject to some minor clarifications and incorporation of appendices prior to being signed on 2nd October.

T h e i n itiative to revise the Conditions of Contract was made by the operator's legal representatives and

agreed by the Law Officers Department. However, there is no fundamental difference between the conditions at

tender and at signing. The differences are listed in the following table.

Condition of Contract at Tender

1  D efinitions

2  S pecial conditions

3  C ontractor to inform

himself fully

4  I nsurance Injury and

Damage

Condition of Contract (signed)

1  Definitions and

Interpretation

–

2  Contractor to

inform itself fully

3  Insurance Injury and Damage

Differences

Expanded to cater for known matters and making Committee the authority.

No special conditions were attached so omitted.

5 C ompliance with Law 4 Compliance with Additional clause in respect of a Specific

Law Change in Law (expert determination).

6  P revention of

Corruption

7  N otices

8  P ower to engage in

default

5  Prevention of

Corruption

6  Notices

7  Power to engage in

default

9  P ayments and claims

for payment

10 Duration of Contract

11 Contract operation 12 Credit

13 Written warnings

14 Breach of Contract,

Insolvency

15 Provision of service

16 States Regulations 17 Contract

8  Payments and

claims for payment

9  Duration of

Contract

10  Contract operation 11  Credit

12  Written warnings

13  Breach of Contract,

Insolvency

14  Provision of Service

15  States Regulations 16  Contract

Schedule of payments agreed and Annual Price Review procedure agreed and incorporated.

Determination of the Contract aspect incorporated in Contract section 16.

More detailed explanation.

Breach of contract applies to either party.

More detailed procedure for variations to the Contract (16.2).

In Determination of Contract section, insufficient finance, failure to agree contract modification and changes to specification, removed as now covered by variations section.

Clause in respect of strikes added.

17  Property

documentation

18  Consequences of Termination

Originally covered in other parts of tender documents. Clauses refer to provision of bus garage, etc.

Clauses incorporated following experience gathered during tender process.

18 Service requirements 19  Service

requirements

19 Vehicle features 20 Performance

21 Disputes

20  Vehicle features

21  Performance Penalty points would not apply at the outset

due to restrictions on operations.

22  Disputes

23  Confidentiality Added. 24  Undertaking Added. 25  Governing law Added.

1 6 . No cuts were detailed in R.C.53/2003. 1.7 of the report, (R.C.4, Annexe  10),outlined that revisions had

been proposed by Connex resulting from the experience gained, passenger surveys and other data collected. I have explained the rationale behind the proposals in my answer to Question 11.

1 7 . I believe that Figures 2a and 2b in R.C.53/2003, (R.C.4, Annexe  11),provide the information that the

Senator requires.

1 8 . (a) W  here practicable, the dedicated school bus service is being amalgamated in stages with the

scheduled bus services. This process began in September 2002 when dedicated services for the Mont Millais and Wellington Road Colleges, to and from St.  Martin, were withdrawn in favour of scheduled services. Two Le  Rocquier dedicated services were withdrawn at the same time and students transferred to suitable scheduled services.

(i ) A p p r o x imately 225  students now use scheduled services for travel to school in the morning

and many more use, and always have used, scheduled services to travel home following after-school activities. In the first year of the Connex contract more than 13,000 student journeys were made on scheduled services without complaint.

( ii ) W  i th t he exception of one morning service to Les Quennevais School, students are being dropped off at the same place on school premises as the previous services on the grounds of

road safety. It is unsuitable for scheduled services to access Les Quennevais School direct, therefore the students are being dropped as close as possible, which necessitates a short walk.

(i i i) S o m  e s tudents need to change buses on their way to and from school, predominantly at the

Weighbridge.

( iv ) B  e ca u s e of differences in routings between the school bus routes and the scheduled bus

routes, I can confirm that some students catch buses earlier than before. Similarly, some students now catch buses later than before. Invariably, services are no more than 13 minutes earlier or later than previously.

(v ) A l l o f t he services, whether scheduled or dedicated school buses, are designed to ensure that

students arrive at school on time. Some buses, either scheduled or dedicated school buses are late on occasions depending on traffic conditions.

(b )  The changes result from a conscious decision of the previous and current Committee to enable the

States to provide, through the 2  operators, the most economic, efficient, effective and, above all, safe and timely service. In our view, that provides best value for the States and the taxpayer while providing safe, convenient travel for the students."

Draft Data Protection Law (Jersey) 200- question and answer (Tape No. 890)

Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern of St.  Helier asked Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf , Vice-President of the Finance and Economics Committee, the following question –

" W ould the Vice-President inform members when the replacement for the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 1987 will be completed and whether there are any obstacles to hinder it being lodged au Greffe' and debated at the earliest possible date?"

The Vice-President of the Finance and Economics Committee replied as follows –

" T he new Draft Data Protection Law has been subject to extensive public and private sector consultation. The seventh draft of the Law was reviewed at the Finance and Economics Committee meeting held on 8th January 2004.