In what ‘Mad Hatter’ economic environment does STSB inhabit?

I am advised that the STSB plan to build a virtually new airport in Alderney is likely to cost Guernsey in excess of £56m., plus a huge hike in annual operational running expenses.

In what ‘Mad Hatter’ economic environment does STSB inhabit, that believes this huge expense can possibly ever provide ‘savings’ for the hard pressed Guernsey taxpayer?

PETER BACHMANN

peterjbachmann@gmail.com

States’ Trading Supervisory Board president Deputy Peter Roffey replies:

Thank you for the opportunity to address your correspondent’s concerns. If I can begin by correcting one assertion, which is that the STSB plans to build a new airport in Alderney. That is not the case. What the STSB has been tasked to do is address the condition of the main runway at Alderney Airport, which requires considerable work and will inevitably involve significant investment. It is therefore sensible that we consider what options there are, and what benefits they may provide – both to the people of Alderney and to the taxpayers of the Bailiwick.

Three options are currently being investigated. Two involve resurfacing the runway and retaining the current length, which should be sufficient to maintain existing air services using small commercial aircraft. That is not a profitable operation, and taxpayers are therefore currently having to meet some of the cost of this provision, to the tune of around £2m. a year.

The third option is to resurface and extend the runway, so that it can be used by larger aircraft. Clearly that is going to be more expensive than simply resurfacing it. It may also trigger additional requirements in terms of current passenger facilities at Alderney Airport, although in reality they are at, or reaching, the end of their useful life anyway and are going to require some investment in the not too distant future – whatever work is done to the runway now.

However enabling larger aircraft to be used could reduce the cost of operating Alderney’s lifeline air services, and therefore reduce the requirement for taxpayer subsidy. The upfront cost will be greater, but an extended runway could translate into savings in the long term. That is why we have not ruled it out at this stage.

What we propose to do, pending the Policy & Resources Committee’s approval, is to invite tenders for all three schemes. We can then identify which option represents the best, long-term value, and therefore is in the best interests of Bailiwick taxpayers. That decision will be based on firm prices rather than the current pre-tender estimates. That is not ‘Alice in Wonderland’. It is an entirely sensible, responsible approach.

Just one final point if I may. We are keen not to discuss current estimates prior to inviting tenders, as that is not in the best commercial interest of the States – and therefore taxpayers. What I can say however is the figures of £50m. plus we have now seen quoted in a number of articles are far above the estimates we have been working with. I am unsure of what they are based on, but in any event the best approach surely is to establish what the cost will actually be. You will only find that out by inviting contractors to cost the works and put forward their prices, which is precisely what we propose

to do.