Alderney’s lifeline link cannot be sacrificed

It is a shame that, after all the hard work undertaken by the Committee for Economic Development and the States of Alderney to release the Invitation to Tenders for Public Service Obligation contracts, that the Policy & Resources Committee should have suggested that ‘no funding should be made available from General Revenue for providing an ongoing subsidy on the Alderney-Southampton route’. After all the efforts to kick-start a process aimed at finding a more efficient service-provider, why are they doing this now? Surely, if it is possible to find a service provider able to provide the Alderney services at a lower cost to the Treasury than Aurigny, P&R should be supporting the process.

It is no coincidence that this statement comes at a time when P&R are unilaterally reviewing the 1948 Agreement without even a nod to the importance of understanding the economic impact. The Guernsey Budget report trots out the usual misinformation about the contribution that Alderney makes to the wider Bailiwick economy, repeating discredited and one-sided mantras about Alderney’s economic contribution, the dubious forecast losses at Aurigny and the dodgy £250m. deficit calculation (which is repeatedly taken out of context by those that do not understand the mathematical ‘trick’).

Aurigny’s losses warrant much greater scrutiny than they have had. There has been a botched transition from Trislanders to Dorniers which has greatly inflated costs. No one in the company seems to be accountable. No one knows how overheads are allocated and there is a deep suspicion that the Alderney routes are made to look bad when compared to the Guernsey-UK routes. The gaze of Policy & Resources passes hastily over these embarrassing issues.

It seems to me that, after all the hard work, some people are going out of their way to frustrate the PSO process. Alderney is still, five years after a requete and the subsequent promises made, fighting to have its runway rehabilitated to proper standards. Candidates for the PSO are being asked to make a series of very rapid undertakings – in many an observer’s view, a process far too fast to allow considered bids by operators other than the incumbent.

Guernsey’s Committee for Economic Development, under its new president Charles Parkinson, has done a good job. All Guernsey deputies who understand the need to invest and promote our economic development will recognise the need to look beyond a short-term accountancy perspective. The States of Guernsey has challenges ahead but Guernsey is not in a financial crisis. Investment should be driving prospects for the Bailiwick’s future, not holding us back.

Alderney will protect its economic lifeline to Southampton. It’s an existential issue. It is the key to all our economic activity – including a potential major new hotel development, with the support of the Dutch government, which will be the envy of the Bailiwick. The path P&R appear to be pursuing in their Budget report leads nowhere. Alderney will use all the tools at its disposal to demonstrate that to them.

Perhaps there will be other sources of funding such as the Guernsey Economic Development Fund, which could underpin Alderney’s lifeline. Alderney’s taxpayers contribute to it and, so far, I don’t think Alderney has had much out of it.

But let there be no doubt, Alderney’s link to Southampton will not be sacrificed because of Policy & Resource’s hubris.

JAMES DENT.

P.S. This is a personal response, not sent in my role as chairman of Alderney’s P&F Committee.