Proposed audit of tender process for the Island bus service

1240/5(2035)

QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY 3rd FEBRUARY 2004 BY SENATOR E.P. VIBERT

Question 1

1. Would the President inform membersof the current position regarding the proposed States audit of the tender process leading up to the appointmentofConnex?
2. Would the president confirm that theproposedaudit –

(i ) has no legal status and will simply examine correspondence between the Department and their

consultants and interested parties involved at the time?

( ii ) can only request examination of such documents and cannot investigate whether all the documents have

been produced?

( ii i) has no power to call for documents from outside parties or take any action if such parties refused to co-

operate?

( iv )  will be assisted fully by the Department no matter how long the audit process takes?

3. Does the Committee intend to bring a reportand proposition to the States calling for a public enquiry into the tender processfollowing the States audit?

Answer

(a) The Chief Internal Auditor has carried out an audit trail, (RC4, 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) The 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, (RC4, annexe 2).

(i i)  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 onfirm this is the case but such powers are not expected to be required. (i v ) I c onfirm 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.

1. Will the President confirm the following extracts from a letter he sent to the Finance and Economics Committee on 19th May2003 –

( i)  after 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';

( ii ) 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';

( ii i)the 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'.

2. Would the President inform members whether the Committee's consultants, Halcrow, exchanged correspondence with Jersey Bus inadvanceof the tender process outlining the TGWUclaimin full, and, if so, whether this information was passed on to all tenderers?
3. Would the Presidentagree that whatwas stated in the letter totheFinance and EconomicsCommittee,as indicated by him in answer to questionson9thDecember 2003, wasmisleading, and will he provide an apology to the ownersof Jersey Bus, its executives and officials of the TGWU?

Answer

1. 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, (RC4, annexe 3).
2. The Consultants did indeed receive a copy of the TGWU's claim, dated 6th February 2002, by fax sent by Jersey Bus, (RC4, annexe 4), on 12th February 2002. This was 4 days after the original 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.
3. In 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.

Question 3

Would 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?

Answer

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 UK. 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.

1. When the Committee decided inMay2003, to pay an additional £187,000 to Connexon the grounds that it was not aware that JerseyBushad entered into a shift allowance/payawardagreement with the Union, did it seek the advice of its consultants, Halcrow, and, if not, couldhe explain the reasons why?IfHalcrow's advice wassought,would the President inform memberswhat that advice was?
2. Would the President inform memberswhether the Committee –

( i) was aware that Connex had stated in its tender that "wage costs included the payment in full of the 2002

wage award"?

( ii ) was 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?

( ii i) sought legal advice on whether or not Connex had any legal right to the £187,000 extra paid to it? Answer

1. The Committee didseek the Consultants' advice. TheConsultants' advice inApril 2003, was that it would be reasonable forthe States to meettheclaim.
2. (i) C o n nex's tender has a statement that has a similar meaning to that stated by the Senator, but not as quoted by him. I cannot confirm that all thememberswhohavereceived the documentationwereaware of the statement.

( ii ) As 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.

( ii i)The 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.

Question 5

Would 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?

Answer

As 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.

Question 6

Would 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?

Answer

Fees and expenses paid to Halcrow were as follows –

2 0 01 £ 5 ,000 2 0 02 £ 6 0,274.67 2 0 03 £ 1 2,041.97 2 0 04 n i l to date

The services 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.

Question 7

Would 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 ) the basis for the decision to run this service?

( b ) why 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? Answer

The Harbour service operated from 1st June to 31st August 2003, and carried 8,690 passengers at a cost of £43,023.

( a ) The 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 ) The 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 ) The 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 ferry service from Normandy was expected, but the operators of the service suffered a significant

delay in delivery and licensing of the vessels.

Would the President –

1. confirm that the Public Services Department provided facilities atthePSD'sBellozanneWorkshopsfor the checkingandpreparationofConnexbuses when they arrived in the Island lastyear,priorto their inspection by Driverand Vehicle Standards, andpriortoawardingeach bus its licence to operate onIslandroads?
2. confirm that Connexreceivedengineering 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 commitmentsof the Department?
3. inform membersofthecost, to the States, if any,of – ( i)  the assistance provided;

( ii ) the bus equipment at La Collette garage;

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

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

Insurance Exemption holders?

Answer

1. Yes, I so confirm. Construction had been delayed on the new bus garageatLaCollette. In the interim, the most practical cost-effective optionwasto provide short-term facilities, at Bellozanne, until such time as the facility atLa Collette wasready for occupation.
2. Assistance from the Department'sstaffwas paid forbyConnex and, in the main, the work was undertaken principally outside normalworkinghours with no effect on the existing commitmentsof the Department.
3. (i)  Nil. ( ii ) Nil.

 ( i ii) The 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.

( iv )  The 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 set up the £9,052 concessionary system to accommodate

Smartcard operation

It w a s a necessary 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.

Will the President confirm –

1. that the gap between fare revenue andoperatingcosts for 2003 totalled £2,482,045 and that this figure includes the fuel rebate plus all theitems listed inthe previous question, and , if not, what the final figure is?
2. that in 2001, JerseyBusoperatedanalmost identical service for a cost to the taxpayerof £710,000?
3. whether the Committee will bereviewingwhethertheConnex service represents value for money? Answer

1. I confirm that the £2,482,045 quoted in Figure 1 in RC53/2003,(RC4annexe 5), consistsof –

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 amount of fuel duty rebate for the period was £158,000.  This is an amount forgone by the States.

T he  amounts  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 king all the figures together as requested produces a total of £2,759,212.

2. No. In2001, Jersey Bus provided a significantly reduced service with buseswithdrawnon routes 2c, 6, 7a, 7b, 8b,19,20,21and22andusing vehicles with an average fleet age of12 years.  Jersey Busalsointended to cut route 4 butcontinued to run itwhentheParishof Trinity agreed tounderwrite the service. Figure 3 of RC 53/2003, (RC4,annexe6), provides a much more like for like comparison.
3. The assessmentofvalue for money wasmadeat the tenderappraisalwhere the Connex bid was considered to be the best valueon a numberof criteria ofwhich cost was only one.  Figure 4a of RC53/2003, (RC4, 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.  TheCommittee will continue to review and assess the operationof the Connex service inthelightof more recent information.

Question 10

1. Will the President confirm that he was present at a meeting with the Finance and Economics Committeeon 12th March 2001, in his capacity as a memberofthe Jersey BusStrategySteeringGroup, 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?
2. In view of the fact that theBusReport presented tothe States on9thDecember 2003, states that the estimate for fare revenue was £2,500,000, would thePresident explain the discrepancy that exists betweenthesetwo figures?

Answer

1. No. I waspresent a year later.

A  s explained 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

Estimated income to Committee

From fares £2,500,000 From cash limits £460,000 £2,960,000

Estimated subsidy required

£4,350,000

(£3,000,000) £1,350,000

2. The estimateoffareincome for 2002-03,basedon1993 figures provided byJerseyBus a numberof years ago, increased for inflation and then reducedto account for the drop invisitorsover the interveningperiod, amounted to approximately £2.5 million as shown.

O ther information supplied by Jersey Bus, in 1998, has indicated that over 3 million passengers were carried

by Jersey Bus, each year.

A suming an average fare of £1 per trip, again would indicate that overall income, including concessionary

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

Question 11

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?

Answer

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.

Question 12

1. Would thePresidentinformmembers whether, after a year of operation, the level of relief buses to meet the tender requirementshas now been quantified, and, if so, whether they willbe provided both in the winterand summer from nowonatno further cost to thetaxpayer?
2. Would the President inform members –

( a ) of the level of relief buses required?

( b ) the number of drivers' hours per week? and,

( c ) of the total cost per week during the winter and summer timetables? Answer

1. Connexhave provided the relief services that experience has dictated are necessary in the first yearof the contract, and remain able to show flexibility ifdemand were to alter. Relief services arenot a further costto the taxpayer over and abovenormal contract payments.
2. The operational details of what is required are the responsibility ofConnex and are notof specific concern to my Committee unlessthere is concern from the travelling public. Consequentlythe information requestedby

Senator Vibert is not readily available to me and would in any case likely be considered by the operator as

commercially sensitive and confidential.

Question 13

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?

Answer

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.

Question 14

Would the President inform members –

1. whether the bus contract between the Committee and Connexwasnotsigned until December 2002, even though the service beganinSeptember 2002, and, if so, thereasonsfor this? and,
2. whytheCommitteeacceptedConnex's claim that it didnotknowaboutthe shift/pay allowanceatthe time the contract was signed given that the Committee'sBusReport presented to the States on9thDecember 2003, clearly stated that this was in factknown in May2002?

Answer

1. The followingtableprovides the milestonedates.

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. (RC4, annexe 8)

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

2. Connexreceived a letter from Jersey Buson 27th June 2002,(RC4,annexe 9), containing details ofthe wage agreement and the additional shift allowance, between Jersey Bus and its drivers. The previous Committee believed that the shiftallowancehad been agreed after Connexwas selected as preferred operator on 1stMay 2002. Thetermsof the agreementwereconfirmedwhenConnexreceivedthe letter from Jersey Bus on 27th June 2002.

Question 15

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?

Answer

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.

The initiative 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 Condition of Contract Differences

at Tender  (signed)

1    Definitions 1  Definitions  and Expanded  to  cater  for  known  matters  and  making Interpretation Committee the authority.

2 Special conditions - No special conditions were attached so omitted.

3 Contractor to inform 2 Contractor to inform

himself fully itself fully.

4 Insurance Injury and 3 Insurance Injury and

Damage Damage

5     Compliance  with 4     Compliance  with Additional clause in respect of a Specific Change in

Law Law Law (expert determination).

6  Prevention  of 5  Prevention  of

Corruption Corruption

7 Notices 6 Notices

8 Power to engage in 7 Power to engage in

default default

9 Payments and claims 8 Payments and claims Schedule of payments agreed and Annual Price Review

for payment for payment procedure agreed and incorporated.

10 Duration of Contract 9 Duration of Contract Determination of the Contract aspect incorporated in

Contract section 16.

11 Contract operation 10 Contract operation

12 Credit 11 Credit

13 Written warnings 12 Written warnings More detailed explanation.

14  Breach  of  Contract, 13  Breach  of  Contract, Breach of contract applies to either party.

Insolvency Insolvency

15 Provision of service 14 Provision of Service

16 States Regulations 15 States Regulations

17 Contract 16 Contract 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 Originally covered in other parts of tender documents.

documentation Clauses refer to provision of bus garage, etc.

18   Consequences  of Clauses  incorporated  following  experience  gathered

Termination during tender process.

18 Service requirements 19 Service requirements

19 Vehicle features 20 Vehicle features

20 Performance 21 Performance Penalty points would not apply at the outset due to

restrictions on operations.

21 Disputes 22 Disputes

23 Confidentiality added

24 Undertaking added

25 Governing law added Question 16

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?

Answer

No cuts were detailed in RC 53/2003. 1.7 of the report, (RC4, 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.

Question 17

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?

Answer

I believe that figures 2a and 2b in RC 53, (RC4, annexe 11), provide the information that the Senator requires. Question 18

1. Would the Presidentinformmemberswhethersomeschool children who were previouslytakentoschoolon a dedicated school bus service arenowhavingto rely on scheduled services, and, if so, would headvise –

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

( ii ) w  hether the children are being taken to the school or being dropped off at the nearest bus stop? ( ii i) w h ether some of the children have to catch more than one bus to get to school?

( iv ) w h ether some of the children have to catch buses earlier?

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

2. Would the Presidentadvisememberswhether the decision to effect this changewas purely a cost-cutting exercise rather than toimprove the schoolbusservice?

Answer

1. W  here practicable, the dedicatedschoolbus service isbeingamalgamated in stages with the scheduled bus services. This process began in September2002when dedicated services for the Mont Millais and Wellington RoadColleges, to and from St. Martin, were withdrawninfavourofscheduled services. Two Le Rocquier dedicated services werewithdrawnat the same time andstudentstransferredto suitable scheduled services.

1. A p proximately 225 students now use scheduled services for travel to school in the morning and many more use, andalwayshaveused, scheduled services to travel home following after-school activities. In the first year oftheConnex contract more than 13,000 student journeys were made on scheduled services without complaint.
2. W i th the exception of one morning service to Les Quennevais School, students are being dropped off at the same place onschoolpremisesas the previous services on the groundsof 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.

3. S  omestudents need tochangebuseson their way to and from school, predominantlyat the Weighbridge.
4. B e causeofdifferences in routings between theschool bus routes and the scheduledbus routes, I can confirm that some students catchbusesearlier than before. Similarly, somestudentsnow catch buses later than before.  Invariably, services are no more than 13 minutes earlier orlater than previously.
5. A l l of the services,whether scheduled or dedicatedschoolbuses, are designed to ensure that students arrive at school ontime. Somebuses, either scheduled or dedicated schoolbuses are late on occasionsdependingon traffic conditions.

2. The changes result from a consciousdecision of the previous and current Committee to enable the States to provide, through the two operators, the mosteconomic, efficient, effective and above all safeandtimely service.  Inour view that provides best value for the States and the taxpayerwhile providing safe, convenient travel for the students.

MFD/ASM/sc/35/9 2nd February 2004

C Lewis Esq Jerseybus

2/4 Caledonia Place St Helier

JE2 3NG

Dear Mr. Lewis

Letter from President of Environment and Public Services Committee to the President of Finance and Economics – 19th May 2003

I refer to the above letter, RC 53/2003 the Annual Report on Public Bus Transport and various articles in December in the media referring to these documents.

Information has come to light which makes it clear that, on 12th February 2002, Jersey Bus provided to the Committee's retained consultants, details of the wage claim together with a claim for a £72 per

week shift allowance, submitted by the TGWU on 6th February 2002, prior to final tenders being submitted. This information was not available to me at the point when I wrote the letter dated 19th May  2003,  or  when  I  presented  the  Annual  Report  on  Public  Bus  Transport  to  the  States  on  9th December 2003.

I am pleased to correct any misunderstanding that may have arisen on this point and apologise for any resulting distress I have caused you and the other owners of Jersey Bus.

Yours sincerely

Maurice F Dubras

President of the Environment and Public Services Committee

Cc: Bailhache Labesse

Deputy Maurice Dubras  - President Deputy Jacqueline Hilton- Vice President

Deputy Robert Duhamel Deputy Terry Le Main   Connétable Daniel Murphy   Deputy Michael Taylor   Connétable Philip Ozouf

MFD/ASM/sc/35/9 2nd February 2004

M Cotillard Esq Director

Jerseybus

2/4 Caledonia Place St Helier

JE2 3NG

Dear Mr. Cotillard

Letter from President of Environment and Public Services Committee to the President of Finance and Economics – 19th May 2003

I refer to the above letter, RC 53/2003 the Annual Report on Public Bus Transport and various articles in December in the media referring to these documents.

Information has come to light which makes it clear that, on 12th February 2002, Jersey Bus provided to the Committee's retained consultants, details of the wage claim together with a claim for a £72 per

week shift allowance, submitted by the TGWU on 6th February 2002, prior to final tenders being submitted. This information was not available to me at the point when I wrote the letter dated 19th May  2003,  or  when  I  presented  the  Annual  Report  on  Public  Bus  Transport  to  the  States  on  9th December 2003.

I am pleased to correct any misunderstanding that may have arisen on this point and apologise for any resulting distress I have caused you and your fellow Directors.

Yours sincerely

Maurice F Dubras

President of the Environment and Public Services Committee

Cc: Bailhache Labesse

Deputy Maurice Dubras  - President Deputy Jacqueline Hilton- Vice President

Deputy Robert Duhamel Deputy Terry Le Main   Connétable Daniel Murphy   Deputy Michael Taylor   Connétable Philip Ozouf

MFD/ASM/sc/35/9 2nd February 2004

N Corbel Esq

Regional Industrial Organiser T&G South and West

District Office

66 New Street

St Helier

JE2 3TE

Dear Mr. Corbel

Letter from President of Environment and Public Services Committee to the President of Finance and Economics – 19th May 2003

I refer to the above letter, RC 53/2003 the Annual Report on Public Bus Transport and various articles in December in the media referring to these documents.

Information has come  to light  which makes it clear that  Jersey Bus  provided  to  the Committee's retained consultants, details of your Union's wage claim, together with a claim for a £72 per week shift

allowance, submitted to Jersey Bus on 6th February 2002, prior to final tenders being submitted. This information was not available to me at the point when I wrote the letter dated 19th May 2003, or when I presented the Annual Report on Public Bus Transport to the States on 9th December 2003.

I am pleased to correct any misunderstanding that may have arisen on this point and apologise for any resulting distress I have caused you and your members.

Yours sincerely

Maurice F Dubras

President of the Environment and Public Services Committee

Deputy Maurice Dubras  - President Deputy Jacqueline Hilton- Vice President

Deputy Robert Duhamel Deputy Terry Le Main   Connétable Daniel Murphy   Deputy Michael Taylor   Connétable Philip Ozouf