Suez takes legal advice – but its door stays open
Tuesday 2nd March 2010, 1:00PM GMT.
SUEZ Environnement is seeking legal advice now that the States has rejected the incinerator project.
Bertrand Lepicier (pictured), managing director of Suez subsidiary Sita Guernsey, condemned the vote.
However, he said the organisation would remain open to discussions.
‘We deplore the decision made by the States of Guernsey as we and our partners have invested considerable effort and resources into engineering a tailor-made solution which is the right one for the island,’ he said yesterday.
‘The tender process was professional, open and rigorous and it was our understanding that, following our appointment as preferred bidder last July, we would look forward to the final negotiation and signing of the contract before July 2010.’
He gave his reaction to the 21-20 vote last week.
‘It is quite surprising, halfway through the preferred bidder stage, to see such sudden U-turn in the government’s strategy. This change is not a reflection on Suez Environnement’s proposal but rather a radical shift organised by a group of deputies.’
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
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
Thought you’d have been prudent enough to have taken legal advice when signing up to the letter of intent Bertie.
Surely you’re not paying your lawyers more in an effort to squeeze more money out of us than the letter of intent sets out. That would be such a surprise……
Don’t leave the door open old chap. Close it behind you as you leave with your sizeable chunk of our money.
Report abuse
Bertrand
It was not a democratic decision and frankly a farce. The decision went against because Environment department were not permitted to vote given future “conflict of interest” – you had a planning application in!!!
These elected deputies – one of whom I unfortunately voted for could not use their vote
I hope you can recoup all costs and loss of earnings as frankly Guernsey should be made accountable for its outdated processes and incompetent management
As a Guern and a Business man i feel embarrassed by my island
Report abuse
EmbarrassesGuern
I don’t know what business you’re in but this kind of thing happens all the time.
It is all part and parcel of the everyday commercial world and the terms of the letter of intent would have reflected that.
Report abuse
EmbarrassedGuern
Thats funny becasue i actually feel proud to be a Guernseyman as a member of the public, oh and a small businessman, and i bet thousands of others feel the same too.
Given the massive public response to all this i think it was a good decision.
Also the fact that so many deputies were ill (perhaps their own fault) informed the first time round i think that was more of a farce.
Report abuse
Well he’s not likely to welcome the decision is he?
After all a deal with a two year guarantee and the risk transferred to the taxpayer is one most businesses would do anything, or say anything, to preserve.
EmbarrassedGuern
But much wishing a foreign company can take Guernsey taxpayers for what they can, especially when no contract has been signed. Normal business risk.
Report abuse
‘It is quite surprising, halfway through the preferred bidder stage, to see such sudden U-turn in the government’s strategy. This change is not a reflection on Suez Environnement’s proposal but rather a radical shift organised by a group of deputies.’
Or that your idea was stupid for the size of Guernsey, and an utter waste of money.
Report abuse
Vive la Revolution!
This turnaround is down to the power of the people and their will, which has been, for once, actually acknowledged and executed by it’s elected representatives…
what on earth is embarrassing about that, EmbarrassedGuern? You think our island installing a massive, overly expensive, soon to be outmoded pollution machine would have made us look good to the rest of the increasingly environmentally aware world?!
As for offended parties? Oh well, never mind, next time you’re passing Bertie, keep passing, and don’t let that door slap you on the *ss on the way out.
Report abuse
This is what makes me ashamed. Attitudes like Scarlett here. Whatever else you think of Suez the company, Bertie is a person who, I recall, said he came here in good faith, with his family. He is just trying to do a job.
Comments like these above do you people absolutely no favours whatsoever. Shame on you all.
Report abuse
Fermez la porte, merci!
Report abuse
Suez seem to be saying they would be prepared to renegotiate and sell us a system they are convinced would not work. As they have spent the last year telling us that only their incinerator would work.
How can we be sure they wer’nt already doing that?
Report abuse
Whilst the detractors enjoy their success can I remind everyone that we still don’t have a waste strategy, no solution on the horizon and Mont Cuet is now pretty much at road level. Before we start dancing on the grave of Suez we need to fully consider the implications of reversing this decision and make sure that positive action follows.
It is unlikely that any future proposal (or more likely a combination of proposals, designed to keep all lobbyists placated) will cost any less than the Suez tender or be any less environmentally damaging or efficient. We will still end up with a hefty bill, but probably in increments, rolled out over a short period with a harbour waste handling area, a waste ship, treating the fly ash that Jersey won’t want after it burns our £4m a year, Brouard’s unproven giant kettle boiling away fresh water and electricity, kerb side recycling and legislation to enforce recycling targets, composting, and, heaven forbid, support for more landfill! Be careful what you wish for…you might just get it all!
Report abuse
carts
your far to negative mate,
“Kettle” is that what its called?
should we not see it working first before it`s rubbished?.
And do you relly think RB has not bothered to check out what it can do? what about the orders thats been placed for it and ofcourse the millions thats been spent researching and building it?
Please tell us why you think it`s not going to work, if that is what you do think ofcourse?.
Report abuse
Rodney’s system will work, there is little doubt about that, autoclaving has been used succesfully for many years and still has a role to play in waste managment, albeit to a lesser intent than with the Vantage system.
There are drawbacks with the system, it uses energy rather than produces it.
The main problem is the product.
Yes, it is a usable product. It is a low value product and can only be recycled as itself.
The more systems that are sold, the lower the value of the end product.
Couple this with increasing energy costs and it quickly becomes unsustainable.
Gate prices would have to rise continuously for it to remain viable.
Its no real improvement on land fill or incineration, just a different method of mass disposal.
My money would be on the Vantage system being a fairly short lived solution.
Report abuse
What is wrong with (most of)you people? – “Carts”, “Islander”, “Billiethefish” etc.
Your opinions are worthless unless you have the courage of your convictions to publish your names. What are you afraid of ?
Report abuse
Carts
If Rodney does get Environment permission to set up a trial of his kettle he could name it ‘Jan’ after Deputy Kuttelwascher who started the ball rolling towards this excellent U turn
There is a niggling doubt over the permission issue as it in no way resembles a glass box
Report abuse
oh, so sorry, Billy,I didn’t realise that Suez was a charity, that it’s representative was here to enrich our lives out of the kindness of his heart, and that this issue was all about his feelings….
I and quite a few others (mistakenly, obviously) thought that it was all about BUSINESS, a highly lucrative, commercial enterprise that had sent it’s representative, Bertie here to coordinate the setting up of a monstrous polluting nightmare that was going to cost us a fortune, before his company left us with the bill and a plant that will, if the planet continues to think the way it does regarding the environment, be totally redundant…
thank you for showing us the error of our ways.
Report abuse
Brrrrrrrr…… it’s chilly in here! Could someone close the door please!
Let’s remember that the Sates voted for a strategy based on waste minimisation. Anything that doesn’t fit that criteria.. non mercy.
Report abuse
Sorry Rosie, but it is factually incorrect to say the States has voted for a strategy based on waste minimisation. Nowhere in the wording of Mary Lowe’s amendment or Jan Kuttelwascher’s requete was the term ‘waste minimisation’ used.
During the debate many deputies said along the lines of ‘don’t vote for the amendment if you’re not supporting a change in strategy towards waste minimisation’. Deputy Ogier was quoted in the press as saying that a vote for the amendment was a vote for waste minimisation.
The thing is, it wasn’t. A vote for the amendment was a vote to withdraw from Suez.
PSD is now working on a new strategy based on waste minimisation but the department will have to take the green paper to the States for debate. This strategy will have to be debated and approved, therefore it could also be rejected.
Fully expecting calls of ‘It won’t be rejected becasue we would then be left with nothing’ but my point is this ….. some deputies who voted for the amendment might have done so becasue they didn’t want Suez, not becasue they’re pro minimisation. Equally, once PSD comes back with recommendations for minimising the waste stream and deputies see how much money it will cost, how much it will impact families etc, plus how much public support it will need to be succesful, many may get cold feet and it could be rejected.
Therefore it is incorrect to say Gsy has a waste minimisation strategy or the STates has voted for a waste minimisation strategy, becasue it doesn’t and it didn’t. It has a department looking to develop such a strategy – but the States could yet peform another U-turn and we’ll be back at square one.
Report abuse
Paradise – Having sat all the way through the debate, it was made quite clear that binning Suez would only be tenable if the members would back a totally different waste strategy, … one based on waste minimisation. When that debate only won by one vote, Dep Ogier said that to carry out a waste minimisation strategy with such a slim majority, would be too risky …. it needed a much stronger endorsement from the house. At which point Dep Trott, followed closely by Dep Flouquet both stood up and said that they would get behind such a strategy and they hoped that others would follow their lead which they did….. 38 to 2.
You are right however, that the word minimisation does not appear in the wording of the amendment… however, there is no argument against minimising the waste problem now that the previous strategy has been removed. Of course there will be costs involved, but they will not compare to the costs that were all too evident with the Suez proposal.
I guess theoretically, you could be right that the States could now vote against the strategy to minimise waste….. I think that that is why it is crucial that Dep Ogier is given a team to work with that are really enthusiastic about making this work. They will encounter problems but with enthusiasm for the project, they will find the solutions. And we as a community should all demonstrate that we are willing to play our part….. and provided it is made as easy as possible for us to do that, I think the Guernsey people will rise to the challenge.
Report abuse
Rosie, you’re absolutely right that the States did back the ideal of waste minimisation at the end of the debate. I know it’s a technicality, but my point was just that the States had not yet voted in a waste minimisation strategy. That part is yet to come when PSD brings is proposals for a new strategy to the House.
So it is wrong to suggest that Guernsey now has a new strategy. What is has is a clear vote where deputies ‘said’ they would support such a strategy – whether that materialises into unanimous support from the Assembly when they have to approve it, its costs and its impact on islanders, is another matter.
I can’t help but feel that many members will ‘bottle it’ once they see the scale of the proposals.
I also think there will be many islanders who don’t want to put the work in to make that sort of strategy work, not to mention some businesses that will lobby deputies in the meantime to voice their displeasure at the prospect of an ‘aiming for zero waste’ strategy.
I agree with much of what you say and the new strategy will probably be voted through with no problem (after all if it isn’t we really are back at square one) but that debate hasn’t happened yet and, as the Suez vote proved, you never know how deputies are going to vote in the crunch
Report abuse
If you have a child then you have a responsibility to care about their future and any children they may have etc. etc. If you can not be bothered to take the grind that is needed for zero waste ethics then we should see a masive reduction in birth rate.
Bet there isn’t though, but until people realise (globally) that how they live now is stripping the planet and there wont be any raw comodaties left to sustain the level of materialism for their children’s children, a sort of long term rusian roulette is being played.
Not forgetting that the environment benefits too from looking at waste in a more sutainable approach. There will be pain initially but as other western countries pick up the thread and more and more manufacturing is geared up to produce less waste then it will get easier.
It will be costly, I think the time of cheap living is over now, and it will cost more in many ways to live, however this is the price being paid for accelorating this position from the extensive materialism that has been portrayed in recent times by the western world.
We will be the working generation taking accountability for what went on before us and by us.
Report abuse
Oh no did I really hear on Radio Guernsey phone in that a requete may be on the way to bring back Suez, whilst I an not an incinerator hater I think we should move on and move forward not dilly dally around like this. Otherwise we will be considered a laughing stock.
Report abuse
Even tho I am pleased that the incinerator has been thrown out, but before we slam the door in the face of SUEZ, and they brag about being the top professionals in the rubbish business, surely they could come up with a recycling factory of some sort, that meets the present requirements. That way, all those millions we have to pay them would not be wasted.
Report abuse
Mal B,
Would that not be a bit unfair on those of us that have been trying to do just that.
To have been continuously shunned in favour of incineration and then watch Suez handed the contract to do exactly what we had been attempting to do.
That is why I have always been in favour of restarting the tendering process.
Report abuse
Well slap my wrists on being unfair. All I was thinking about was money.(The root of all evil) I agree that the waste problem should be re-tendered for by all companies concerned, but to slam the door in SUEZ face as everybody here thinks we should do, as they failed in this bid. You never know, they just might have a better idea. In that case, we could save a few millions. Anyway, good luck on your bid Total Waste.
Report abuse