C&E not convincing over need for shiny new toy

A CHILD sets their mind on the next shiny new toy.

'I want that one,' they say.

'Well, that one is very expensive – and you know you already have one that will last for a while yet,' the patient, cash-strapped parent replies.

'But this one is old – and that one has got bells and whistles.'

'OK, if you really do need one, and I'm not sure you do, how about this one down here?'

'But that's a different material, I've not used that before. Shan't even think about it. Want that one. I need that one. And my friends say I should too.'

And on it goes.

Except that instead of a toy we are talking about a sea fisheries patrol vessel costing just shy of £3m., so the department behind the proposal had better have a solid evidence base.

On first reading of Commerce and Employment's report it seems to tick plenty of the boxes, but there are warning signs there if you know where to look.

There are two main arguments the department needs to win here. Is a new boat really needed? And if that is the case, has it specified the new vessel in the right way?

The Leopardess certainly is not on its last legs. It has been well maintained, as is the way with public assets. Indeed, even the department thinks it could fetch £250,000 when sold.

A survey in 2012 gave it a further 10-year lifespan.

Now there are many sensible arguments for not running the vessel into the ground, but we are clearly a long way from that.

So deputies have room for manoeuvre if either they think this is not money well spent at this time or the solution favoured by the department is not the right one.

Alarm bells begin to ring whenever those in charge of a States project say there is only one company that could possibly do the work and that a proper tender process is not needed, as is the case here.

That is clearly no way to guarantee value for money, for starters.

But it is also the process that led to that conclusion that is worthy of further scrutiny.

The States has run into difficulties before in coming up with tender specifications that are so tight on what it has decided it wants it leaves no room for other solutions that might be just as good or even better.

This is a prime example.

Commerce and Employment decided the new vessel had to have an aluminium monohull and be shaft driven, presumably on the grounds of that is what it has now.

Indeed, it so much wanted the Leopardess II that only the ship builder that was responsible for the original was capable of delivering it.

The love affair with aluminium is not explained in the report – that is a mistake, because it was a decision that everything else hinges on.

Aquastar, a local company with considerable experience, was ruled out instantly because of it.

It says it could build a fibreglass vessel for nearly £500,000 less and the public must just be wondering why C&E is being so lavish with taxpayers' money.

This is the States that has hammered home the need for restraint, for value for money, that the days of plenty are over.

So why, as it enters its final hurrah, does it feel it is right to stick by this spending splurge? Especially when it is coming in the face of sustained criticism from experts on the outside.

Now Aquastar clearly has plenty to gain in promoting its own solution, but everybody knows that.

But there are plenty of experienced maritime voices with nothing to gain who seriously question what Commerce and Employment has proposed.

Other departments are keen on the new vessel, but then again, who wouldn't be keen on something that can be specced up to cater for all their whims with money seemingly no object?

C&E gave little time for any idea of sharing with Jersey, referring to a 1997 report on the issue, although all the barriers it put in the way could be overcome if there was a little less antagonism on fishing issues.

There is no mention of the experience of other similar jurisdictions such as Jersey and the Isle of Man and the options they have followed and with which ship builders.

It wrote letters to just 10 boat builders to see if they were interested. Four were, three were then ruled out by the department. One because it submitted a catamaran design when the department wanted a monohull, one because its boat had not been fitted with a Rib ramp before and questions were raised over its long-term viability, and then Aquastar, which the report wrongly states has not built a shaft-driven vessel.

There is a joke that does the rounds calling the Leopardess the Olympic flame – because it never goes out.

That may be slightly harsh, but satire always has a hint of perceived truth in it.

This is the kind of reputation the department needs to overcome.

Commerce and Employment's report, and what it has said subsequently, fails to convince that it is pursuing the right path. It will have to win over the sceptics in the chamber instead.