From Clive Jones, chairman, Jersey Heritage.
YOUR correspondent Alan Le Rossignol (JEP, 8 July) complains that our decision to replace the old DUKWs on the Elizabeth Castle route was flawed and that the replacements are ‘inappropriate’.

His view is a widely held one, not least by many States Members whom Jersey Heritage is seeking to influence in terms of its future funding.

I therefore think it is right I should try to explain, as clearly and briefly as I can summarise such a complicated matter, how that decision came about. I hope you will allow me to do so.

The first thing to say is that Jersey Heritage has an obligation under the terms of its management agreement for the castle with the States, to ensure access. That’s a legal obligation and one we take seriously. Pointing tourists towards the footpath and warning them when the tide is going to come in doesn’t do it as far as we’re concerned.

And in any case, the drop in visitors that would result would make Elizabeth Castle unviable as a heritage site.
The operators of the old DUKW’s told us in very clear terms that they no longer considered the business viable and wanted to get out of it. They would be happy to sell us the DUKWs, but they had no interest in staying in the business of operating them.

We offered varied contract terms to see if they might be induced to continue, but the answer was no. The price the old DUKWs were offered to us at was very high, especially considering the fact that the vessels were at best obsolescent, if not obsolete. Although the asking price dropped as discussions continued it was still higher than our marine surveyor advised us was practical and so, with regret, the association came to an end.

In considering what to do next, I can assure Mr Le Rossignol that the one thing Jersey Heritage didn’t want to do was to end up owning and operating amphibious vehicles: we did not see that as being part of what we do. As a consequence, we put the provision of the service out to open competitive tender, which resulted in three proposals being put forward.

The preferred proposal was from a local leisure operator who proposed to purchase two newly-built vehicles and operate them for us under a long term (ten year) contract that would recoup the purchase price and provide them with a reasonable profit from operating the service.

To cut a long story very short, after a lot of effort by the leisure operator and Jersey Heritage, the vessels were built, delivered, certified for operation and put into service. That is where we would have hoped things would have remained.

Unfortunately the effort of getting to this point had put a severe strain on the leisure operator’s financial resources, requiring direct financial support from Jersey Heritage. There was a growing risk of a default under the agreement, and with that the possibility that the vessels would pass into the hands of the firm’s creditors and be lost to Jersey Heritage.

Mindful of our obligations to keep access to the castle going, and having travelled so far down this road, the trustees saw little option but to acquire the vessels and the business (the two went together) from the leisure operator and do it ourselves. That wasn’t where we wanted to be, but it is where circumstance caused us to end up.

In purchasing the business, it was right for us to keep in mind not only the costs of the amphibious vehicles themselves, but the associated costs of bringing them into operation and, reasonably, an element of the profit that the operator would have been able to earn. If people want to argue that we paid too much, they’re welcome to their opinion. I have to say I think it’s sensible for Jersey Heritage to be viewed as a reasonable business partner and not to push another local business catering to local families and tourists to the financial brink.

And that’s where we come to be where we are. In the first six months of this year visitors to Elizabeth castle are up 6 per cent from the same period last year, even though overall tourist numbers are down. Despite the events of the last few days the vehicles are safer and more reliable than their predecessors, evidenced by the fact that Jersey Heritage is licensed to operate on the route without a second vessel on permanent standby.

What would the alternative have been? Fewer (paying) visitors to the castle, no weddings, no corporate events, no raves and maybe simply closure of the castle on economic grounds. Would we have got stick for that too? I can’t see how we’d have escaped it.

I can’t help Mr Le Rossignol’s nostalgia for the old vehicles: I’m sure it’s shared by many people. But I have to say that I’d prefer them to be nostalgic for the DUKWs and yet still be able to enjoy one of the jewels in the Island’s crown than the other way around.