Suez rejection could provoke a crisis
Monday 20th July 2009, 1:00PM BST.
THE Rational Alternative waste proposal provides little evidence of ability to deliver, according to local companies associated with French firm Suez, the preferred tenderer to build a waste facility (pictured) for Guernsey.
They have written to the Chamber of Commerce with their concerns after its waste subcommittee said it saw merits in the alternative – an approach by campaigners based on two micro-incinerators and increased recycling.
The letter is signed by Guernsey Recycling chairman Alan Crowe, Island Waste managing director Dan Hubert, J.W. Rihoy and Sons chairman Jeremy Rihoy and Falla Associates managing director David Falla.
‘Although superficially attractive, based on the case put forward at the public meeting on 14 July it is hard to identify any concrete proposals of merit in the presentation,’ they said.
‘There is clearly an enormous risk that if the Chamber council endorses this unproven, unscrutinised proposal, States members could be ill-advisedly influenced, resulting in them potentially setting aside the results of a thorough and rigorous procurement process. Clearly, this would send an unfortunate message to both the local and international community about how we do business in the island.’
They go on to describe the alternative case as unsubstantiated, albeit well-intentioned.
‘The Public Services Department’s proposed solution is the result of a thorough and extensive procurement process and, as such, it has undergone rigorous technical, financial and operational evaluation,’ they added in the letter.
‘To suggest that States members reject this in favour of an alternative, which remains entirely uncosted and untested and without the independent validation that such a tendering process provides, would be, in our opinion, irresponsible.
‘By their own admission, the Rational Alternative Group’s plans do not represent a proposal but more a belief that there may be a better way.’
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
I might be imagining things but perhaps there is just a teeny weeny hint of self-interest being displayed here? Bit like a tank manufacturer saying that not starting a war could provoke a crisis.
As for the PSD proposal allegedly having “undergone rigorous technical, financial and operational evaluation”, the Rational Alternative presentation last week indicated that the predicted cost of the PSD scheme had gone from £115M to £230M since May this year.
Perhaps that part of the Gang of Four’s letter was just the result of an audio typist’s momentary hearing problem then, and ‘rigorous’ should in fact have read ‘frivolous’.
So, should we listen to the detached views of the Chamber of Commerce etc., or to the scaremongering coming from those with a desire to keep their snouts in the potentially lucrative Suez trough?
A belief that there may be a better way? Hardly a huge leap of faith is it?
Report abuse
If it wasn’t so serious the comment from the four ‘The Public Services Department’s proposed solution is the result of a thorough and extensive procurement process and, as such, it has undergone rigorous technical, financial and operational evaluation,’ would be enough to make a cat laugh.
As Fin points out the increases in cost, plus the forgeting to include the cost of finance, the cavalier attitude towards risk, all suggest the misuse of the word rigorous.
As the fours are so taken with the rigorous approach what contingency plans would they suggest if the new syatem goes tits up after year two. Not very likey but still a real possibility.
Perhaps the answer is it will only cost the taxpayer £100 million or so, or can they be sure the draft contract dos not include punative tie in clauses and escalation and refinancing costs.
But then its your money not there’s so why should they worry.
Report abuse
Do these four with a big self interest relly think the public are that stupid? We can see right through your scare mongering.
talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Mr Rihoy employing outside labour to work on ststes projects when there are plenty residents here to fill the work. Now thats what i call irresponsible. Its all about £££££.
Report abuse
In the unfortunate event that this thing moves forward in the manner that PSD and their Gang of 4 Puppets seem hellbent on I would be very interested to review the proposed terms of contract. I’m not inexperienced in these matters -particularly PFI / PPP, call it what you will, and there are many many pitfalls which usually end up with the taxpayer taking a drop into the pit of debt.
Reckon they’d put it out into the public domain for us to have a look at first? Me neither.
As you say Stephen, why should they worry. As taxpayers, we should though.
Report abuse
Shouldn’t the headline be “Suez ACCEPTANCE would provoke a crisis”?
* Massive costs to the tax payer
* 25 year shackle to this technology only
* Massive financial risk after the guarantee period
* Public concern about emissions
* Public polls (so far) indicate this isn’t what we want
* Disinsentivises (sp?) further recycling
* Footprint of Suez plant is oversize, loosing potential revenue from other uses for states land.
I find it quite odd that the private company that runs the Pointes Lane facility can be behind this proposal…. they are going to be put out of business!! Or has this been sweetened by “commercially sensitive information” which is hidden from the public and other states members?
It’s also amusing to read BF’s comments about how shipping our waste off Island is wrong as it is our responsibility to sort it out.
Instead of shipping it out he is pushing to ship Suez into the Island to sort it out for us.
Whilst it could be argued that turning down Suez would not be good for Guernsey’s International reputation, they should not have been lead to believe it was a “done deal” until it gets fully approved by the states. Of course I’m sure they were made quite clear of that fact whilst entertaining the representatives of their potential new clients (us).
Report abuse