1

Paul Le Page

This reminds me a little of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty – repeat the vote until the “right” result is obtained.

Report abuse

3

Bryn

Just how out of touch can this guy be? Pathetic.

Report abuse

5

Jenny Duncan

I voted on your question as to whether the states should discuss incineration again. My husband then voted too, but you said I had already voted. How can 2 people living with one computer both register a vote?

Report abuse

7

Phil

For goodness sake, this is becoming increasingly farcical as time goes on.

As the deputies can’t seem to resolve this issue may I suggest a method that would truly take into account the public’s views on this subject.

REFERENDUM.

Report abuse

9

Penelope

The Tony Spruce requete is a misguided attempt by States Members to ‘save face’ to the rest of the world – with complete disregard for the wishes of the Guernsey people. The members concerned agreed in The States to back the decision to support the alternative waste strategy and they should now be putting their efforts towards seeing how waste minimisation can be achieved instead of trying to re-introduce Suez which, amongst other things, will be an economic disaster for Guernsey.

Report abuse

11

eric

Hey hang on a bit;

Do those misled and out of touch deputies unfortunately voted in to do as the people wish, and with their solemn word to so do.
Now they show their true selves,
Do they intend to bring it up time and time again?

The people said no; then it should and must remain the peoples choice. That’s democracy.

Roll on next election; we’ll make sure that the present lot of mis-creants never enter the Buildings again, unless to answer for their sins of present day.

Report abuse

13

Jan

I believe we need a referendum on this otherwise the States will still be debating requetes and amendments in 2020. Put it to the people once and for all.

Report abuse

15

GG

“Public Services Department member Deputy Tony Spruce (pictured), who is leading the requete, said that was an undemocratic decision that would cost the island a fortune.”

And going ahead with the incinerator won’t cost us a fortune? Well I guess £100million+ isn’t much at all then…

I really do hope these deputies are never voted to be in the States again, they are useless to our island, and cannot debate something correctly. The majority were against the incinerator, accept it and move on, perhaps zero waste. Tony Spruce lives in the Vale, complains about the smells from Mont Cuet, so why he’s happy with smelling the deadly cancer-causing toxins from an incinerator I don’t know.

Report abuse

17

Alex

Stop Stop Stop Stop. A minimum waste strategy is common sense. It is patently clear this is what the majority of the public want. Compulsory segregation of waste and kerbside collection, maximum recycling including composting of all islands food waste. These measures will largely resolve the issue and almost half the amount of waste left. What’s left we’ll pay Jersey to take or use the landfill.

Report abuse

19

Rollon2012

Well having heard a Deputy comment on the radio yesterday that if there was any way of getting Suez back in then he would see that it happened EVEN IF IT WAS NOT WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC WANTED, then this latest attempt to satisfy the egotistical leanings of Messrs Spruce, Hadley et al comes as no surprise. As unwelcome as it is.

This petulant dummy spitting will hopefully lead to two things. A reaffirmation of “non” to Suez and a quick exit from office for those shamefully supporting this move.

Report abuse

21

Charles

The Guernsey people have made their preference clear already. What difference does two or three votes in the States make when the people do not want incineration and have said so over and over again? Democracy is government by the people, not by a handful of confused, misguided and stubborn politicians elected or otherwise.

Report abuse

23

Richard

This is a very misguided move. How seriously can Islanders take the States if a major decision like this cannot stick for a week without someone trying to overturn it? The decision was made last week, however imperfect some thought the process to be. A lot of people had severe doubts about the wisdom of the incinerator in terms of both cost and process and others thought it was the only way forward. There is now a chance for a proper review. If this requete succeeds there will just be a prolonged battle which will help no-one.

Report abuse

25

Richard

According to the UK government funded agency on waste – the Waste Resource Advisory Programme (WRAP) incineration is the most expensive form of waste disposal. It is resource and energy inefficient. It destroys value resources and recovers minimal energy. It costs a fortune. If the incinerator goes ahead in Guernsey it will burn about 8000 tonnes of food waste a year – a totally inappropriate way of dealing with food waste which should be anaerobically digested and composted as recommended by DEFRA. The incinerator will produce at least a quarter of a million tonnes of eco-toxic bottom ash and over 20,000 tonnes of highly toxic fly ash during its operation – Guernsey can get to the same levels of residual waste with a waste minimisation strategy as it can with an incinerator. An incinerator still requires a landfill as not everything can be burned. An incinerator for Guernsey is economically unjustifiable and environmentally irresponsible. If the incinerator goes ahead Guernsey will lose the rental income from Longue Hougue and the space for other business development, it will harm our tourist industry as the incinerator will be visible from almost everywhere on Guernsey’s east coast, and from Herm, and from the cruise ships mooring in the Little Russell. The decommissioning of the incinerator will add tens of millions to the total cost of the project. No deputy who has studied the waste issue in Guernsey can logically come to the conclusion that the incinerator is the right option for our island. It makes no sense except for the people who will pocket the money.

Report abuse

27

essie scott

when the vast majority of islanders are against mass burn (and make no mistake they are against it) why o why did 20 odd states members even vote for it let any of them try and get as many signatures FOR IT and then the majority might listen to these states members who are so far off the views of the people who voted them in its smacks of their arrogance so to all islanders entitled to vote remember who they are and dont vote for them next time and if you do then you deserve more of the same ps i just heard the states have refused to allow rodney brouard to bring in his system set it up at no cost to the states to prove it would work i rest my case

Report abuse

29

Paul

I don’t know wether to laugh or cry! Don’t these current states members realise the harm they are causing the people of this island with their pathetic ‘look at me’ antics. The current PSD board have to go to give Guernsey any chance of going forward with waste, let alone all the other huge projects in the pipeline.

Report abuse

31

essie scott

no they should leave the decision as it is (no mass burn) stick me and my wife down for two votes

Report abuse

33

Katherine

No! No more debates or voting. The States has finally seen the light and agreed that the island should have a modern rethink and follow a zero waste strategy. A ‘monster’ Guernsey incinerator is NOT the answer to our waste problem. Leave the decision as is and get on with devising the means to follow the new philosophy asap.

Report abuse

35

carts

I see lots of quotes about the “will of the people” and the “majority” that are against the efw and unproven statements about petitions etc but no evidence to support any of these claims that the Guernsey population has any opinion at all about waste strategies. I’ve also seen reports that are adamant that we can’t compost food stuff due to the impact on the water table, there’s only a limited market for recycled material regardless of how much we seperate and kerbside recycling won’t make any significant impact on the islands proportion of recycling…but it will make life easier for those that already schlep out to the bins every week. The same people who want to save the planet are happy for Jersey to burn our rubbish and we have senior statespople still advocating landfill. Everything is either £200m or free and proven, even if it doesn’t exist.
All sides are heavily invested in misinformation and point scoring to such an extent that it is Guernsey that will end up losing.
The States are “employed” by the voters to do what is right for the island…turn off your e-mails, unplug your phones, stop worrying about your personal popularity, stop reading these forums, lock yourselves in a room with all the research and work together to make a decision that will benefit this island!

Report abuse

37

delma

jersey will soon fill up then where will we be? would be better with a smaller cheaper incinerator providing it would still do the job but if not go ahead with suez. we can still all re-cycle. d.w.

Report abuse

39

Dave Jones

All of you get on the phones to those who have signed it and let them know of your anger, you can also add the name of Deputy Peter Gilson to those who have signed the Requete. Many of them supported the final vote for waste minimisation.

Report abuse

41

Dorothe

I am very disappointed if the States vote again on the incinerator. The States finally made a good decision. I have worked for 5 years in the Guernsey tourist industry and an incinerator is not going to help Guernsey’s international image. You will be able to see this massive building from all along the east coast. Idyllic Herm will also have a view of this facility with its 55 metre chimney. Guernsey is known for its beauty. Visitors expect Guernsey to be a beautiful island. The tourist brochures show this. The landfill has problems but these can be sorted out without the use of an incinerator. A large incinerator on the coast is going to harm Guernsey’s image.

Report abuse

43

local guern

please please please sack all the states members, they have not a brain cell between them.

Report abuse

45

Guern abroad

It is very sad to see this rear it’s head again.
The Jersey situation the way I see it would only be short term and in a sliding scale of use as the waste strategies picked up.
It is not about getting a good price for recylced materials, it is about realising that the Planet only has so many raw resources which are running out. Recyling is madatory to preserve sustainability.
If you like your cheap plastic toys and the like then you have to accept that recyling is the only way to forfil this throw away ever wanting lifestyle that the western countries harbour.
Burning what you throw away is a criminal waste.
If people bought only what they needed to eat etc. then there would be reduced food waste anyway. Green waste can be composted and probably with out water table implications.
Life has got too fast lane and ‘immediate’, we need to go back to a more respectful living style where we appreaciate what we have, can have, and eat.
25 years will see huge changes in global development, and tying in to a 25 year incineration deal that is not geared up for responsible waste management is not an ethical approach to take.
We have families because we believe in the future, so don’t screw it up!

Report abuse

47

Stephen John

Ray

You said “So Mr Spruce and his cronies do not accept the ruling made by the Deputy Bailiff,with the help of the Law officers,that it would be unlawful for the Environment members to vote.”

Ray, If the vote had gone the other way he would have accepted the decision of the Deputy Bailiff and demanded that everyone else accept it!!!!!

Report abuse

49

Ted

Sadly, whatever the rights and wrongs of the various waste treatment possibilities, one can be sure of one thing and that is that several of our deputies voted for purely populist reasons. What hope is there of sensible debate in the chamber when deputies are swayed not by facts or arguments but by the howling of the masses.

Report abuse

51

valeite

I thought that all Vale parishioners were supporting Suez, or that was what I was told by one of the two Vale deputies supporting them. Just how many Valeites do want an incinerator? or St. Sampsonites for that matter, it would be interesting to know.

Report abuse

53

Guern

Unbelievable !

The PSD complain about how the Island’s reputation might be tarnished by turning down the Suez proposal, Hello, what on earth do you think you are playing at with your yo-yo politics?

What do you and your minority supporters suppose you are doing to our Island’s credibility?

What exactly is driving this? With the overwhelming majority of the public squarely behind throwing out the Suez proposal, together with the majority of States members agreeing at the last democratic vote (Yes Mr Spruce a DEMOCRATIC VOTE) to do the same, why is this small band hellbent on bringing in Suez? There are clearly other better cheaper options.

It will be interesting to see who will employ this bunch come the next judgement day, they certainly won’t be States members any longer!

Report abuse

55

ron cleal

How stupid can the states get!
They talked about their credibility being at risk if the incinerator was rejected. Now the right decision has been made they want to go back and possibly change it again. Babies,toys and prams spring to mind!!If this does happen the States and the whole of the island then their credibility will be seriously in shreds.
We will be more of a laughing stock!!
I would like to suggest that if these requete signers have their way and the stupid states reverse the decision by a similar margin , can I line up a set of deputies to make another requete to redebate to get that decision reversed.
The states leave me speechless
Ron

Report abuse

57

Rob

I never realised that Tony Spruce had such a sense of fun as this must surely be an April fools joke – it is isnt it

Report abuse

59

MalB

I think the States really want this incinerator, because it solves a lot of problems on waste. You put out the rubbish as usual, the rubbish man takes it to the incinerator, its burned, job done. No hassle, no mess. Who cares what the public want!! their doing their job. If the States were interested in recycling, they would have done something about it by now in a big way. But,,oh, you say, what about the bins they put out? Exacteley, it is you the public that is recycling, not the States.

Report abuse

61

Judy Hayman

So Deputy Spruce and Hadley have listened to the Civil Servants in PSD and the Consultant employed by them who is renowned for only favouring incineration. Surprise, surprise – we get an incinerator. Now they can’t get their way they attempt to bring the matter back to The States. It is appalling. Let us all unite to fight and help those Deputies who have been brave enough to listen to us and the independent International Consultants in Waste Management who have visited the Island recently. I would like to hear the truth about why the People’s Waste Panel were not listened to and if they had been listened to I suggest we would not be in this mess now. I know an ex-deputy who could enlighten us!!!!

Report abuse

63

Paulio

Thank heavens for an injection of sense in this sorry saga. What is the logic in a vote which does not involve the Deputies who have all the detailed knowledge on a subject? I suppose the loud minority of anti-incinerator protestors will cry foul, but please try and look at the democratic logic here. A corollary would be to say that that Treasury ministers should abstain from all votes on financial issues. Where is the sense in that?

Report abuse

65

Amy

This is a complete joke!!!!
School children would do a better job than the bunch of idiots that we have running the island, supposedly in our best interest….Perhaps they should ask them!?!? seeing as the decision will effect them and their health for longer than us.

Report abuse

67

eric

If you still want an incinerator; then you must also have no love for your children or elderly folk.

Incinerator causes mass pollution of the air by the very fine dust.
there will be more lung infection, and throat infection.

It is not possible to filter all from the burner; Herm will suffer greatly with a Northwesterly blows,
It’s alright for these people to say let’s have the Suez- but never stop to think.

I can assure you that you have little holiday traffic now, build that burner, and you’ll have none.

Report abuse

69

becks

“But Deputy Spruce says we need to know what the States as a whole really wants”

Isn’t he in the States? Do they not talk to each other over tea & biscuits?

Enough listening to the inappropriate political manouvering of the likes of Flouquet and now Spruce – there’s no point in asking for an opinion of vested interest politicians when you clearly cannot hear what the normal, sane and very concerned populace of Guernsey are shouting – NO to incineration.

I love that his election manifesto of 2008 he states “It is easy to criticise (PSD) without knowing all the facts, but it is difficult to understand how this department has overspent on so many capital projects and been so ill informed…”

Perhaps because they are being pushed by even less well informed, self interested politicians?

Report abuse

71

GB

This just shows, the States can’t make a decision, no backbone to stick to a decision made! The States just want to go for the easy solution, big black box, where you only have to push some buttons, but not thinking about the consequences (costs, toxic waste, environmental impact…). People are happy to consume and enterprises lining their pockets with profits, but no one wants to pick up the increasing waste out of this behaviour. People have to be more responsible to what they do, and this includes tiding up after themselves – this means waste reduction, reusing, repair, and recycling.
An incinerator will only change the shape of our waste, it is not getting rid of it!
Let the people of Guernsey vote on the incinerator subject, since the deputies don’t represent the true picture of the people of Guernsey. Have a referendum; this will tell what the people of Guernsey want.

Report abuse

73

arapaho

This is no longer about anyones piddling attempt to save the planet all on their own,its about some VERY big money being bandied around ,and you can vote all the current deputies out to your hearts content, (the problem there with so called democratic voting, is which group of idiots do you replace them with), but when suez (guernsey) ltd is formed you probably wont get past the current list of directors and beneficial owners on the companies registration list ,but in there somewhere will be a couple of EX guernsey deputies who didnt give a monkeys whether you voted for them or not because they’re all right JACK ,

Report abuse

75

Mrs Average

I do not consider myself to be a ‘green’ campaigner but over the last two years have significantly reduced the waste that I and my average family of 2 adults and 2 children produce. This has been done thorough re-cycling, more informed choices being made on goods purchased and by using home composting. We throw out less that half a black bin sack a week and could probably do better if there were an extension of re-cycling; it’s not difficult and if my average family can achieve this why can’t others? I fail to see why some members of the States insist that we need the Suez plant; it is the waste minimisation strategy that is the right, cost effective and achieveable answer for Guernsey.

In talking to other people, I have not met one person who supports the Suez proposal. These are people who like me, are not politicians and not green campaigners, but people who are making choices regarding waste reduction and disposal of that waste. So to those politicians who seem to be blinkered to listening to the people of Guernsey it is time for a referendum on this matter; time to really listen to the community. I think that the majority of people in Guernsey would say no to Suez.

Report abuse

77

Stephen John

Ray
Ray

You said “So Mr Spruce and his cronies do not accept the ruling made by the Deputy Bailiff,with the help of the Law officers,that it would be unlawful for the Environment members to vote.”

Ray, If the vote had gone the other way would he have accepted the decision of the Deputy Bailiff and demanded that everyone else accept it!!!!! I don’t think so.

PC A bit late to say “I 100% agree that the decision should come back to the states and even if the decision had been the other way would be saying that” Can’t recall you saying that before the daft seven, and their even dafter requete.

Funny how Spruce hasn’t twigged that his requete will increase the reputational damage he was so concerned about in his letter to the Press.

Perhaps a case of money talks and principles walk?

Report abuse

79

Judy Hayman

We are not alone in our concerns regarding Suez http://www.gdfsuez.eu.com/

Thanks Ray and also Mrs. Average – I have never been part of any enviromental group either – probably will be after what I have learnt through this disgraceful affair. I just love this Island and am concerned for future generations – both their health and wealth and I am appalled to think there is a strong possibility that this whole affair centres around money and greed not about the welfare of the people of Guernsey. I keep repeating – Why was the People’s Panel disbanded. If we knew the answer about that we might be getting closer to the truth

Report abuse

81

rosie

Paulio:

Have you done any research into this topic? The Deputies who did not vote were not the Deputies from PSD, the department holding the waste mandate…. they were in Environment. And they could have voted if they wanted to….. but they chose not to. And why would you think that they have some unquantifiable ‘detailed knowledge on (the) subject’ that we don’t also have? It is just a matter of taking the time to read and understand the reports which many of us have done.

Report abuse

83

PC

Neil

maybe you should focus on the point rather than getting your dictionary out?

If the decision to go ahead with Suez won by a single vote and the majority of those not permitted to vote where against would you be up in arms?
What has changed?…Do Suez now need to use Sam’s law firm? Given Suez Planning Application can not go ahead are Environment conflicted at this point in time? If 1 of them resigns (everyone wants them to) from Environment are they permitted to vote and what if they are replaced with a someone anti Suez?
If this is how decisions are made then this to me is a bigger problem.
For me if 10% are not allowed to vote the margin has to be bigger than this to reverse a decision but that approach also has its flaws.

Guernsey states should sort its voting issues out and if I were involved in a business requiring states approval then I would check Sam or other lawyers manifesto’s before deciding which law firm to use e.g. if Sam was anti inceration then use her law firm as I can take out 1 vote or if she was pro, use another law firm!!!
This is how Guernsey states works and yes I have a major issue with it as against providing a true, fair decision and as I said if it had been the other way I would be saying exactly the same thing.

I am totally for recyling and moving towards reducing our waste but want a strategy that is costed properly, factual and not in dreamland.

If it still involves an incinerator so be it With an island that has more cars than adults and people suggesting shipping and incineration I find most people have not seen both sides of this argument for which I, as a voter at least expect those elected to have factored into their decision.
If the alternative increases rates by 200% would you be prepared to pay?
If it involves 1000′s of people having to go weekly in their cars poluting the environment to recycle centres – would they do it?
Kerbside – We struggle to get people to work as firefighters…Does anyone really think we can employ dozens of extra bin men to collect and sort waste…god help us if they striked… I suppose we could always import labour
Every decision has pro’s and con’s which have to be factored in so for me this is what we expect all 47 deputies to be doing and not “voting with the heart” or “voting to stay in the states” and not “voting for the good of Guernsey”

Report abuse

85

Spruce Hadley In Tow

Judy H. Very interesting reading. Along with the links which Spirit posted above (and several others which he posted on Whynotguernsey on 26th January) ALL Deputies should be made to read this stuff.

Bet it wasn’t part of the Suez tender submission. Not the best CV ever written is it?

Maybe copies could be printed and attached to the back of the Billet?

Report abuse

87

rosie

PC:
The Environment members were allowed to vote….. they chose not to. They had several weeks of advanced notice before the requete went to the States but chose to remain outside of the debate. That decision is now being questioned because the result was not as some members wanted it.

I am glad that you would like a strategy that reduces our waste and I appreciate that to have all the different components of that kind of strategy costed would be ideal. However…. it is a pretty tall order! Or are you offering your time to help do that? We’ve got less than 2 weeks!

It is a complete fallacy to state that a strategy based on waste minimisation would be more expensive than Suez…. it would be much cheaper and the money spent with all the businesses in the recycling and re-use industries locally would be money circulating with-in our own economy. The space at Longue Hougue rented out to a variety of light industries and recycling businesses could be a revenue generator for the States which could be used to subsidise kerbside collections…… as it is, they would give that space for free to Suez.

Suez would cost us a minimum of £8m PER YEAR! You could get an awful lot of recycling for a quarter of that price.

I believe it is a mistake to believe that ‘our elected’ Deputies understand all sides of this argument better than some people outside of the States who have looked at this issue in great detail and spent hundreds of hours on it in the process. The Deputies have lots of issues to deal with……. waste is just one of them and for many, it is not the most important. They have so many reports and billets to read, that we can’t really expect them to be authorities on all the issues.

Report abuse

89

Dave Gorvel

It all seems to be said now nothing to add apart from.
I am one of these who did not go on the Belgrave marches, but l did support them in my heart and mind.
I did have a yellow ribbon on my cars, against the incinorator, but did not protest outside the Royal Court, which l now apologize for not doing.
I will be for the very first protest, and it now needs all of us to be outside The Royal Court on Wed. 31st March to show that we disagree with Tony Spruce(i will not put Deputy As he does not represent me)and his undemocratic cohorts.
All those who support the incinorator should be there to show us just how many there are.

Report abuse

91

rosie

Dave:

I believe it will be WEDNESDAY 24th MARCH…. not the 31st. Put it in your diary! The 24th 9:00am.

Report abuse

93

rosie

billythefish:
So why would we want a ‘global company’ here doing what we can do for ourselves? ….particularly if as you say, they are all iffy?

Report abuse

95

Neil Inder

Billythefish

Along with googling ‘elvis is alive’, ‘alien abduction’ and ‘the Bermuda triangle’ – shocking isn’t it?

Rosie
“particularly if as you say, they are all iffy?”

Come on Rosie, you’re better than that. You can argue your position from facts rather than Internet chatter.

Report abuse

97

David Grimshaw

I am proud that the majority of Guernsey people have opted for a non-incinerator solution. Future generations will thank us for kicking into touch such an outrageously expensive and lazy method of treating the detritus of our consumer society. Incinerators are SO 20th century !

Report abuse

99

Darren

why on earth would an incinerator be the best course in any shape or form?! the world is running out of resources, we need to reduce emissions and recycle waste to preserve the natural resources we have left. we do not need to carry on throwing out the same amount of rubish, send it to st samsons and burn it! who are these idiots and who the heck voted for them!!!

Report abuse

101

Michael

What this boils down to is a “let’s clear the desk” exercise. Far easier to hand the problem over to a third party and pat yourself on the back for having solved that issue.

Well that’s not good enough, I’m afraid. We deserve better from our elected representatives.

The poll at the top of this thread currently indicates 78% against the Suez incinerator and 22% for it. Granted that this may not be a completely accurate cross-section of society but it does give a good indication of the attitudes of the public.

One may well have to consider a campaign of civil-disobedience in order to make one’s feelings really felt and ultimately with a view to bringing down this government. That it should come to this saddens me deeply.

Report abuse

103

Caroline Thompson

No to incineration, leave decision as it is!

Report abuse

105

Tom Thompson

No to incinerator, leave decision as it is

Report abuse

107

Rob

The whole thing is getting ridiculous , this has to be the worst bunch of politicians we have had in many years. They cannot make a decision and stick to it then perhaps they should not be in power. We are stuck with them until the next election so god help us.

Perhaps we should force a referendum on the waste issue or get them to all stand down and force a general election. They issue this leads to is the same , no alternatives !

Report abuse

109

Another Thompson

Keep Guernsey Tidy…Post you rubbish to Jersey.

Report abuse

111

GG

@john “toxic fumes? waht difference will it make if we export to jersey? the toxic fumes will emit from there so will be just the same. suez is the most efficient way to get rid of rubbish. j.w. one of the up to now silent majority.”

Nobody is saying we should export to Jersey, but we could for a few years whilst we find the BEST option for the island, such as a zero waste policy. This way there will be minimal toxic fumes, and we will not have to dispose of toxic ash.

Zero waste is the future, whether you like it or not, you cannot just sit on your backside and never recycle my friend!

Report abuse

113

michelle

Tony Spruce is right. The vote in the house was undemocratic and should be taken again with all members voting.
There are many unanswered questions.
We should not be sending rubbish to Jersey, where will it be stored? Could they put the cost up once begun.
Recycling is not viable for all people, they may be ill, elederly,living in unsuitable housing for storing used food etc or just very unwilling to take part.
We need an incinerator of some kind.

Report abuse

115

Ray

I’m not sure how many Deputies have to be present in order to make the Assembly quorate but if a sufficient number like Sam declare themselves conflicted wouldn’t that scupper the Recquete ?

Question ….. Why would they be conflicted ?

Answer ….. Because they refuse to be associated with THE WORST STATES EVER !

Report abuse

117

Stephen John

Thanks to Total Waste and Matt Fallaize for telling us that Mr Spruce and most, if not all his gang voted for the States to show a united front on waste by supporting the Kuttelwascher Requete

Matt’s (and Total Waste’s) point that the Kuttelwascher Requete as amended by Lowe, was approved by a majority of 36 when put to the States as the substantive proposition at the end of the debate, probably not least of all because the Chief Minister and Public Services Minister – both of whom voted against the Lowe amendment originally – asked the Assembly to unite around the amended Requete so that PSD could emerge with a strong mandate to redesign the waste policies of the States” shows just how stupid the approach of Spruce is.

Add to this the fact that Spruce voted for the Kuttelwascher Requete, and it sets up a story line that no one could make up. And this from a man who claims to be concerned with the repute of Guernsey.

Report abuse

119

GG

@melc, Jersey are happy to take our waste, Rodney Brouard is happy to display another form of waste disposal, both of which are far far better than Suez.

Report abuse

121

Helen

Respect to you, Matt Fallaize. As usual you speak perfect sense.

I feel very strongly that a new waste minimisation strategy is the right choice for Guernsey (on every front – cost, environmental, social etc) and that the Suez proposal is both retrograde and deeply unsuitable for our needs. However, this requete is a chance for our deputies to put paid to this issue for once and for all, by reaffirming the enlightened decision they made a couple of weeks ago when they voted overwhelmingly in favour of a common sense approach that will not cost the earth.

Anyone who thinks waste minimisation is in any way difficult, time-consuming or expensive, I urge you to research it: you’ll be delighted to discover that it generates really impressive results with minimal investment or change to infrastructure. The idea that our streets will be clogged with recycling lorries etc is deeply misguided.

Bring on the requete to bin the Suez proposal for good!

Report abuse

123

Matt Fallaize

Judy,

Please don’t forget that several deputies attended the first presentation hosted by Green Homes a few weeks ago. I could not be there on that occasion, but will be tonight; and vice versa I’m sure some of my colleagues who cannot be there tonight were last time.

Michelle,

I agree that there remain unanswered questions, and much work to do, in respect of alternative waste policies necessary to obviate the need for mass burn incineration.

But, with respect, the claim that the votes last month on the Lowe amendment and Kuttelwascher Requete, as amended, were undemocratic does not bear scrutiny unless one accepts the rather odd notion that no parliamentary vote is sufficiently democratic unless every single member is forced to vote pour or contre.

Ray,

The quorum of the States is 24. But I could not support trying to stymie debate by making the Assembly inquorate – that really would be an illegitimate (mis)use of procedure. Far better, surely, to approach the Spruce Requete in a positive way, determined to debate constructively and demonstrate that the supporters of mass burn incineration are wrong for the second time in as many months.

I don’t expect that the Deputy Bailiff frequents this forum, so I feel somewhat obliged to defend his handling of last month’s debate in view of claims on here that advice or rulings of his led to members of the Environment Department abstaining, which is not the case.

When considering planning applications, members of Environment are sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Their decisions are capable of challenge legally – and bias, whether perceived or real, is grounds for such a legal challenge. Ultimately, they made a judgement [with the help of, but not under instruction from, the Law Officers of the Crown] that the most honourable course of action was not to vote in the Assembly in order not to conflict themselves out of considering the important planning application from Suez.

The Spruce Requete does not challenge the rulings or advice of the Deputy Bailiff or the Law Officers. It merely explains the view of the requerants that it would have been preferable had all members of the States felt able to cast a vote pour or contre.

Denis,

The Policy Council has not sanctioned the Requete. Any seven members are entitled to submit a Requete for debate by the States of Deliberation. The motion is submitted to the Policy Council, which, along with any departments to which the Requete is relevant, has the right to append a letter of comment to the Requete when published in the Billet.

Remember that the Policy Council is a co-ordinating body, not a cabinet. It cannot veto debate on Requetes, although it can insist that they be debated not less than 60 days after being submitted. In this instance, very wisely in my view, they have agreed to waive this ’60-day rule’ in order that the Spruce Requete may be debated earlier than the May meeting, which is when it would normally be taken.

I cannot speak on behalf of the requerants, obviously. Prima facie I cannot see that anything has changed since last month’s debate, other than that the planning application from Suez may no longer be ‘live’. That is speculation, admittedly, but if it is the case, it may mean that the risk of Environment members voting this time is slightly less than it would have been last time, although I note that today’s Press quotes [I'm presuming accurately] a spokesman from that department suggesting that the circumstances surrounding the participation of its members in the debate and vote may not be materially different in March than it was in February.

It does seem, though, that the intention of the requerants is to provoke a debate in which all members vote pour or contre. Upon reading the Requete originally, I assumed that the requerants had obtained assurances from the six members who abstained last month that they would not abstain this time, without which the purpose of the Requete looks even more dubious. Now, though, I am not at all sure that the requerants are doing anything other than seeking to bring the matter back to the States simply on the basis they didn’t agree with the outcome last month.

Anyhow, one could expend a lot of energy needlessly speculating about the rationale for the Requete and the objectives of the requerants. Put simply, they are exercising their democratic right in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. We are going to have the debate and we had better turn our minds to arguing on the substance of their proposals.

Report abuse

125

Dave Jones

This might help

REQUÊTE

RESIDUAL WASTE TREATMENT – RESTORATION OF PREFERRED BIDDER ORIGINALLY SELECTED

THE HUMBLE PETITION of the undersigned Members of the States of Deliberation SHEWETH THAT:-

1. On 30th July 2009, after consideration of a Report dated 29th May 2009 of the Public Services Department (Billet d’État XX of 2009), the States resolved inter alia:

“To agree to the appointment of Suez Environnement as the Preferred Bidder for the design build and operation of a residual waste treatment facility as detailed in that Report.”

2. Following that Resolution, your Petitioners understand that the Public Services Department and Suez Environnement (“Suez”) progressed their discussions, as required, to the stage at which Suez had made its application to obtain planning consent from the Environment Department. Significant costs have been incurred by both Suez and the States of Guernsey pursuant to the States Resolutions culminating in those on Billet d’État XX of 2009.

3. On 25th and 26th February 2010, the States of Deliberation debated a Requête signed by Deputy Kuttelwascher and six other Members of the States in Billet d’État IV of 2010, the prayer of which petitioned the States “to instruct the Public Services Department to return to the States to seek authorisation for the execution of a final contract with Suez Environnement for the design build and operation of a residual waste treatment facility”. Deputy Lowe moved an amendment (“the Lowe amendment”) to substitute the proposition to read:

“1. To rescind the Resolutions on Billet d’ État No. XX of 2009.

2. To rescind Resolutions 4 and 5 on Billet d’État No. I of 2007.

3. To direct the Public Services Department to give written notice to Suez Environnement of the States’ decision to withdraw its status as Preferred Bidder and to withdraw from the procurement process.

4. To direct the Public Services Department to return to the States as soon as practicable with a Report setting out proposals for a revised strategy for disposing of solid waste.”

4. Following considerable debate on the Lowe amendment, the States voted in favour of it by 21 votes to 20 votes, with six abstentions. Five of the six Members who abstained are the members of the Environment Department. Before the final vote on the Article relating to the Requête, an amendment moved by Deputy Matthews resulted in there being a fifth proposition directing the Policy Council to ascertain from the States of Jersey the most beneficial contractual terms on which the States of Jersey will agree to import and dispose of waste exported from Guernsey and to report to the States thereon as soon as practicable.

5. Your Petitioners are of the view that some or all of the members of the Environment Department believed that, because of their involvement in determining the planning application submitted by Suez, they had no option but to abstain from voting on the Lowe amendment. Your Petitioners understand that there was no absolute legal or procedural bar preventing any member of the Environment Department from exercising his or her entitlement to vote for or against the Lowe amendment, albeit that there would be consequences flowing from doing so in relation to their participation in the planning process. Your Petitioners further understand that a number of Members of the States have reflected on the consequences arising from the States’ vote on the Lowe amendment and consider that if a fresh vote were now taken on the issue the conclusion might be different.

6. Your Petitioners are greatly concerned that the decision of the States to withdraw the status of Suez as Preferred Bidder and to end the procurement process has, and will continue to have, a significant and long-lasting impact on Guernsey. This impact is both reputational and financial and will, in the view of your Petitioners, adversely affect future procurement exercises.

7. Your Petitioners further believe that reaching a decision to end the procurement process with Suez through the involvement of only 41 of the 47 Members reflects poorly on the democratic processes of the States. Given the significant financial and potential legal consequences of the vote on the Lowe amendment, which will result in long-term consequences for the public and local industry, in the interests of absolute clarity, your Petitioners believe that a fresh vote is desirable in order to ascertain whether or not a majority of Members agree with the direction in which the waste strategy has been taken as a result of the Lowe amendment.

8. Your Petitioners are aware that the Public Services Department has, as directed, complied with Resolution 3 arising from the Lowe amendment and given the written notice required to Suez. However, your Petitioners believe that there is an opportunity to restore the position of Suez as the States’ Preferred Bidder with a view to closing the contract with Suez on mutually acceptable terms.

9. Your Petitioners believe that it is in the interests of the States to re-visit the question of whether the Suez option for the design build and operation of a residual waste treatment facility, as previously agreed, is the most appropriate solution for Guernsey as soon as practicable, and with a view to there being full participation of all Members of the States in reaching such an important decision.

THESE PREMISES CONSIDERED, YOUR PETITIONERS humbly pray that the States may be pleased to resolve:

(a) to rescind Resolutions 1, 2, 4 and 5 on Article 14 of Billet d’État No. IV of 2010;

(b) to re-affirm the principles of the Procurement Strategy as set out in section 14 of Billet d’État No. I of 2007 and the steps taken thereunder;

(c) to direct the Public Services Department to negotiate with Suez Environnement with a view to restoring (i) that entity’s status as the Preferred Bidder for the design build and operation of a residual waste treatment facility as detailed in Billet d’État No. XX of 2009 and (ii) the contractual position in accordance with the letter of intent between the States and Suez as it was prior to February 2010; and

(d) to reinstate Resolutions 2, 3 and 4 on Billet d’État No. XX of 2009.

AND YOUR PETITIONERS WILL EVER PRAY

GUERNSEY

This day of March 2010

A Spruce

G Mahy

S Langlois

R Domaille

J Stevens

A Langlois

M Garrett

M Hadley

P Gilson

Report abuse

127

G M Oldroyd

The choice of the Suez incinerator was always flawed for many reasons not least because it is very expensive, more than the Island can afford and poor technology, which as time goes by will prove to be a heavy burden.

I am involved in building a waste disposal plant in Cornwall that will handle 60,000 tons per annum. The operation will use a pyrolisis plant which will generate 4-6mwats of electricity, produce little residue and be dimensionally tiny in comparison to the proposed Suez site. The capital cost will be less than £12m pounds including the generator and this alone makes the suez proposal look crazy and that is also the view of one of the leading experts in the UK.
Pyrolisis is not new technology, just modified for use in waste disposal, and far more environmentally friendly than incineration.
I am not anyway proposing this alternative because the obvious answer is to use the incinerator being built by Jersey, it is such a no brainer, they have committed to their scheme and we may as well use it as they will need the waste from Guernsey to make it viable and it is concievable in the future that they will buy waste to feed it. Transport to Jersey is simple and the same equipment used by London to ship their waste can be used and this should be combined with sensible reduction in waste through recycling.
What I do not understand is why the States are making such heavy weather of this decision and I question the motivation of the people pushing the Suez supposed solution which if you excuse the pun is rubbish.

Report abuse

129

GG

What I don’t understand is why Spruce signed the first Requete, then sets up this second requete, I hope he isn’t re-elected in the future.

He also lives in the Vale, I thought most of the south side disliked this right on their doorstep? I hope he’s speaking for his people, and not himself.

Report abuse

131

rosie

The Suez planning application has been withdrawn which might encourage some of the Environment Department to participate in the vote on Spruce’s requete. However, they will obviously have a conflict of interest problem if and when the Suez project goes back into planning. So I don’t see how the situation has changed.

9:00am Wed. 24th March will be the time to show your unhappiness at the possible return to Suez……… we will gather outside the court buildings for a ‘good natured’ demonstration so that the Deputies will see the support for a stategy based on waste minimisation as was voted for at the last States meeting.

See you there! Spread the word.

Report abuse

133

Neil Inder

Survey Results here:

http://www.ifcfeed.com/guernsey-articles/Guernsey-residents-firmly-reject-Deputy-Spruce-Requete.aspx

Report abuse

135

Stephen John

Part 5 of the Spruce requete deserves a further reading. What it says is that the Spruce gang believe that the Environment members who did not vote because of conflict made a mistake and should have another chance.

Note no reference to Law Officers and any advice from them, nor sight or sound the the five from Environment.

If this is a bad enough reason for another bite of the cherry we than have a plea that other members might have changes their minds so lets have another vote.

The outcome is that at any time the Suez applications might appear in the future then there will be multiple objections of conflict as the Environment five claerly believed there was a conflcit when the vote was taken to dump Suez.

Notice also that Spruce ignores the points made by Total Waste and Matt Fallaize re the 36 majority in the last act of this circus.

In addition to these points we have the requete of Spruce bellyaching because all 47 deputies did not vote.

If there are Darwin awards for politics then this requete would be a serious candidate for the award of the year.

What a waste of States time.

Report abuse

137

Ray

I’m not sure if this was a dream or if it really happened …
I was at the Custard Castle paying a bill.I gave the cashier ,Miss Hadley, my £30 and she promptly threw it into her waste bin.Then she wrote out a receipt and threw the pen into the bin.
Why did you throw my money into the bin? I asked.
Because it’s no good now,it’s been used said Miss Hadley
And the pen ?
That’s been used as well. Once things have been used they have to be burned,it’s the rules.
Who’s rules? I asked.
I don’t know ,it’s just the rules.Miss Hadley’s two colleagues,Mr Langlois and Mr Domaille, confirmed that this was indeed the rules.
Who’s your Supervisor? I asked.
Mr Spruce,but he’s away
Away where?
Away with the fairies.
I demand to speak to someone about this.
Well Mr Gillson,Mr Garrett and the other Mr Langlois are in but they’re with the Chief Minister getting a rocket about a requete which has put him in a very embarrassing position.
And whatever is that racket coming from down the corridor ?
That would be Mr Flouquet practising ‘Mammy’ for the Eisteddfod.
There must be someone I can speak to.
Well Mr Mahy is in but you’ll have to get passed his secretary Mrs Stephens first.
I found Mr Mahy’s office in the ivory tower but there was no-one in reception so I rang the brass bell on the counter.Mrs Stephens appeared and promptly threw the bell into the waste bin. As she replaced it with a new bell from a cupboard full of new bells I asked her why she had done that.
It’s the rules she replied.Once something has been used it has to be burned.
I suppose I must have raised my voice because Mr Mahy then appeared and asked if he could help as he was a retired head teacher and it was his job to listen to and help his parishioners whenever possible.
I asked why it was that everything had to be burned when it had only been used once.
Because the States made a decision last July. We had a debate about what we could do with our rubbish and it was decided almost unanimously to send it all to Suez to burn.
What were the alternatives? I asked.Wasn’t Reduce,Re-use and Recycle discussed?
Oh no,said Mr Mahy.There were no alternatives.Suez were the chosen ones and we were just required to rubber stamp the deal.
So what sort of Licence fee is Suez paying us to operate over here? I asked.
Oh they don’t pay us.We pay them 93 million to build their burner and over 25 years we will pay them 250 million but we did negotiate a two year warranty.
Mrs Stephens,also a retired head teacher, took out a calculator and worked out that we would be paying Suez £21,260 every day for 25 years,which is £885.83 every hour for 25 years or £14.76 every minute for 25 years. Then she threw the calculator into the waste bin.
The burner has to run at full tilt said Mr Mahy.That’s why we made the rule that everything has to be burned after it has been used once.
He checked his calendar and invited me to attend the final signing up agreement on the 24th of March,before throwing the calendar into the bin.
I promised that I would certainly be there.
I couldn’t stand it any more and desperately needed to wake up.
As I walked passed Miss Hadley on the way out I was muttering to myself ‘They’re all mad’
Oh yes Sir, said Miss Hadley.This is the Custard Castle.You have to be mad to work here.

Report abuse

139

steve

I love how the pro-incinerator camp like to refer to the ‘silent majority’ that backs them. Full marks for attempting to construct an unassailable and unprovable argument, which ranks up there alongside the “divine right of kings” in terms of merit.

If you have a ‘silent’ majority, make them stop being silent then. Put up or shut up Mr Spruce, don’t try to pull the trick of shouting commands to your imaginary army in order to convince the enemy you outnumber them.

Report abuse

141

FnarFnar

Yer, that will be the same >>silent majority<< that did not vote for any of them.

Report abuse

143

PC

Steve,

Pro-Incinerator camp or people like myself who want a workable proven waste strategy that in fact would include recycling which is in place today – (I have estimated a worthwhile 25 hours a year I spend in a Vazon carpark, by my compost heap and Bulwer Ave and yes, give me more things I can recycle and I will).
If a waste strategy has to include a modern incinerator – we have tonnes of waste (and not incinerator out of the industrial revolution) then if that is what is right for our island as it is for most if not all islands of our size or bigger (all I have researched have either landfill or incineration) then we can not go for a strategy entirely dependant upon islanders/businesses reaching a recycling target and ofcourse all the goods we recycle need to go somewhere off island to use them.
We could ship all our waste to Jersey subject to them actually accepting it but enviromentally that is even worse, will result in higher cost to us the taxpayer given will include transportation cost.

At least we all know that if the strategy excludes approaches used and still being developed globally and our waste builds up (will not be the airport firemen who can hold us to ransom) with nowhere to go we can stick it our 4×4′s and drop it off at Stan’s garden centre or Mary’s house

Every decision involves risk and how much are we prepared to risk on not having a guaranteed way of disposing of our waste in the future?

Report abuse

145

Neil Inder

The rejection of the Suez proposal does not necessarily mean the rejection of incineration. It’s quite possible that PSD could come back with a smaller more publicly acceptable solution. No Suez does not necessarily mean no fire.

Report abuse

147

Stephen John

Shane Langlois

Thanks for your rebuttal of Matt Fallaize’s appraisal.

your comment “it would have been perverse to have done other than vote for filling the void by developing a new waste strategy” shows just how irresponsible you and your colleagues are.

Why didn’t you stand up for your rights rather than waiting a few days before changing your minds.

Matt has dealt effectively with your other criticisms.

Report abuse

149

David

Ray
I sincerely hope that the Editor will reproduce your brilliant earlier post in the printed Press.

Report abuse

151

GG

Didn’t realise that Matt Fallaize, even so Spruce is wasting tax payers money, and not listening to the people he represents.

Report abuse

153

AD Locke

Shane Langlois
Surely nine Deputies voting to accept the Suez proposal last July, then seven months later opening their eyes and realising that there are better cheaper alternatives and voting to renege on the agreement, is a lot better than being pigheaded and carrying on with an out of date overpriced solution.
Just because the States waste management strategy, was five years in the making does not make it correct, neither does the £3.2million penalty.
Those deputies have since listen to alternative ideas and understood them knowing that it won’t be easy but will be a real challenge. Something you don’t believe your electorate on a small, affluent island wedded to importing most of its goods can achieve or is up to. 78% of your electorate think different!

Report abuse

155

Dave Gorvel

Just a random question. If you happened to be are a Deputy and non-excetutive director of Mayside, can you still vote?
Also, this is to let Western Parishioners know, that there will be a Deputies surgery on Saturday 20th March at the Forest Douzaine Rooms 10.30am to 12.30pm.
All 6 deputies will be there to answer questions on the Billet, everyone in the four parishers are welcome.
I am also trying with the help of Neil Inder to have a on line poll for Western Parishioners to take part in.
Hope other districts can do the same.
See you Rosie and all, on at 9.00am 24th March Royal Court.

Report abuse

157

PC

Is it worth getting now agreement and into Public Domain who is not permitted to vote e.g. I assume Sam L can not vote given Suez may still be a client and one Deputy is (from their declaration of interests) a Director of a recycling company which obviously may benefit substantially??

Stephen John – I see nothing irresponsible with the actions and in fact it is more irresponsible to sit back and do nothing.

This will be a real visible problem to the island and if the strategy has to involve an incinerator even after 12,000 adults, kids, unborns signed a petition then if that is what is needed to keep our island streets clean and is most effective with such an inflexible infrastructure then so be it.
Guerns do not want paid parking yet it may benefit our environment by encouraging other means of transport, Guerns will not give up their cars or move away from gas guzzlers, Do we really think we can get every islander to sort, clean(using water) every piece of waste and we can develop an infrastructure which may triple recycling, with no means of reusing it therefore shipping it off island
We all would like to minimise our waste but it will be more than 1 generation away before a modern society will not require landfill or incineration. Maybe a harsh reality but that is my view

Report abuse

159

Judy Hayman

Strange how no one comes back with an answer to my query – how come The States were advised to employ consultants who were known to favour incineration. If someone can come up with the truth about this, we will all know the root of our problems

Report abuse

161

bryan morris

It is clear to me (if not to the deputies in the States) from comments I have heard that the majority of Guernsey residents are against the Suez Incineration project as being too expensive & environmentally unfriendly.

I am not necessarily for kerbside collection & processing instead. This would need strict separation to be organised as well as the equipment to process the separated material for recycling. We have not yet seen an exacting costing or plan for this.

What I would like to see is a proper analysis of the alternatives (shipping to Jersey, the Brouard proposal etc.). I am convinced that these alternatives have not to date been properly investigated & the States should not use the previous lack of a tender as an excuse. Things change & new better ideas should not be ignored when we are still a long way off from implementing a project to deal with our waste. Eventually, the solution may be a combination of solutions.

THE BIG PROBLEM WITH IMPORTANT ISSUES LIKE THIS IN GUERNSEY IS THAT WE DO NOT ORGANISE REFERENDA TO ASCERTAIN WHAT GUERNSEY RESIDENTS WANT AND THE PRICE THEY ARE PREPARED TO PAY.!!!

Report abuse

163

rosie

Tim:
1. They have looked at other types of technological ‘waste disposal’ systems but mass-burn always wins out because of the criteria that they have laid down to mark the systems against.

2. Quite a lot were originally received but all, bar a handfull, were thrown out because none of them complied with the tender document criteria. I think that took the list down to about 8 which was quite quickly whittled down to 3, again because they didn’t comply fully with the criteria.

3. No it is not.

It all comes down to the tender document which from the beginning has been critisised because it was obvious that the only solution that would satisfy the criteria written down, would be mass-burn.

Waste minimisation has never been part of the strategy……. if it had been, we would not be here now and we would not be needing to look at large expensive ‘technological’ fixes which simply exchange one kind of problem for a differnet kind of problem.

Report abuse

165

russm

Peter van der Tang also seems to have been taken in by this silent majority nonsense. I only know a couple of people who signed the petition but no-one I know (not one single person) supports Suez. There are plenty of us in the silent majority who are anti- mass burn, probably the vast majority.

Report abuse

167

rob

why dont the states of guernsey do what we the people pay them to do’represent us

Report abuse

169

Tim

A Zero Waste World or Cloud Cuckoo land?

An e-mail sent to all Deputies who voted for the recent Lowe amendment:-
Dear Deputies,

I would like to conduct a survey among all those who support a zero waste approach, to see how honest and committed they are to that strategy.

Ask yourselves the following four questions:-

1) What percentage of your current wardrobe is composed of second hand clothes?

2) In the last three months have often have you been down to the Longue Hougue re-cycling site and taken something out of the scavengers skips?

3) Was your main car bought second hand or did you buy it brand new?

4) What proportion of the food that you eat on a weekly basis is ‘home’ grown, either by yourself or at least ‘hedge veg’?

If you are going to try to impose a ‘zero waste’ philosophy on the people of Guernsey,
you will never convince anyone to change their lifestyles until you score maximum marks
on these sorts of questions.

Ask yourselves before you vote in the next debate:- “Do I, or could I ever, practice what I preach?”

If you are interested in how Rosie Dorey has answered these four simple questions, go to
the bottom of the ‘Thisisgusensey’ link by copying and pasting the following into your browser.

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2010/03/04/pay-as-you-throw-might-be-coming/

If you could let me know how you scored, I would be interested?

Thank you for your time.

Report abuse

171

GG

@Tim, I think a zero waste strategy and perhaps either shipping to Jersey/using Rodney Brouard’s suggestion would be better than an incinerator.

Report abuse

173

June

I thought Deputies were supposed to vote the way the people wanted? I have NOT spoken to one person who WANTS the incinerator, yet they still want to vote again. Surely as it is such an important issue the only way to settle this once and for all is to go to the Polls! That way every person in Guernsey can have their say and they will have to listen to us.

Report abuse

175

Richard

Professor Paul Connett’s presentation on “Zero Waste: A Stepping Stone to a Sustainable Guernsey” at Beau Sejour on 23 February 2010 will appear on YouTube. The presentation and question and answer session lasted about two hours. The first six ten-minute videos have been linked to the Sustainable Guernsey blog. As additional videos become available they will be linked to the blog as well. Go to: http://www.sustainableguernsey.info/blog/category/waste/

Report abuse

177

Ron

I have just picked up on this correspondence and was surprised to read that the Vantage Process was still under consideration. I am all for full evaluation and trials but I was under the impression that the full process i.e. the manufacture of a plastic lumber fit for sale was unlkely to be viable. Has anyone read the Friends of the Earth notes on this? http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/autoclaving.pdf

Report abuse

179

Ray

I shall be sending an e-mail to Radio Guernsey at radio.guernsey@ bbc.co.uk asking them if they would be kind enough to play back the short speeches made by Deputy Trott and Deputy Flouquet after the excellent 38-2 vote at the end of the Lowe amendment debate

I believe both speeches were a rallying call to the States members and the whole Island to get behind a change of waste strategy

I’d just like to be reminded of their words

If you feel the same send your own e-mail to Radio Guernsey

Report abuse

181

Sean McManus

The notion of a one-stop option to deal with our island’s “waste” is not without its attractions. If we were subsequently to learn that the same multi-national company could also deal with the island’s sewage and even perhaps take over our water utility, there would be many who might think that’s three issues dealt with. Of course, such a seemingly tidy arrangement would come with a very significant price tag whether it be denominated in financial terms or in terms of our insular autonomy.

Some readers will regard that as a price well worth paying for a rich little island. We could all move on with the pursuit of more mundane but no less important matters. It would allow the Editor of the Guernsey Press to pursue his personal fixation with executive government from the comfort of his editorial suite while the States can get on with the more pressing demands of governance.

Of course there will be those who continue to worry about the financial and environmental consequences of an incineration/EFW plant (Who does pay for the bottom ash to be exported? Who bears the costs of decommissioning? What is the opportunity cost of utilising Longue Hougue for a single EFW plant? ) and those who experience continued discomfiture at the prospect of a multi-national corporation milking their Guernsey cow for the next quarter of a century or more… at the cow’s risk.

Of course, such people can be marginalised and safely dismissed as “tree-huggers” together with the usual “little Guernsey” suspects who trumpet old-fashioned value for money ideas : so very 20th Century; so insular; so out of kilter with our modern world! Certainly, it would be in the interests of those wishing to see a one-stop outcome to separate the broad swathe of local people with concerns about such an outcome from those who can be presented as hard-core environmentalists. The more charmingly naïve might just be persuaded to fall for such a pitch…. if they don’t think too hard about it.

Multi-national corporations are much given to proclaiming their continuing commitment to the jurisdictions in which they do business. Such entities have access to huge legal and public relations resources and come with the experience of dealing with a range of governmental institutions. Indeed, we can probably expect a further charm offensive from Suez/Sita in the run-up to the March meeting of the States. There is an old adage which suggests that those who enter a relationship with any corporation which has ongoing relationships with many others (in many other countries) should not realistically expect pain-free fidelity.

Oh, and then there are all the issues surrounding the political handling of the new requete… but that’s for another occasion.

Report abuse

183

Neil Inder

>>dismissed as “tree-huggers” together with the usual “little Guernsey”<<

One of the most disappointing elements of this debate has been the reversion to abuse by some elements of both sides of the argument.

From the anti's I've seen explicit and implied comments on various Politicians' reputations and from the pros the complete dismissal of any objection as 'lobbyists', 'greens', petitions and surveys brushed aside as in some way corrupt or irrelevent.

Having listened to yesterday's phone-in when Mrs Spruce called to discuss her last week's experience; everyone should have been appalled to hear that the Spruce family had received threats of a both physical and verbal nature; that kind of activity is cowardly and unacceptable.

Report abuse

185

Judy Hayman

Of course, as Advocate Ferbrache said on the Sunday Phone In, it is totally disgraceful if people are threatening Tony Spruce. I can’t help feeling he lays himself open to this by his attitude. For instance, saying as he did on the Sunday Phone In, “We as State Members have all the facts” when speaking about the incinerator

Report abuse

187

GG

@Baphomet, this isn’t a done deal, and even if this requete gets through it certainly will not be a done deal, the people of Guernsey will not accept this disgust.

Report abuse

189

valeite

I find it quite amazing that the people of Guernsey dont realise the amount of abuse and threats that politicians have to endure when things are not going in the abusers favour. Ask any politician and I am sure they could give you quite a few examples, but many of them just brush it off and say it comes with the job, anonymous messages on the answerphone are the most cowardly. I wouldn’t want their job if it was the last job on earth.

Report abuse

191

PeterC

Having being told to do more research I have and looking up environmental activist Dr Connett – I am concerned a high proportion have become so taken in that they have become blinded.
Globally, environmental activists bring in Dr Connett (nice work if you can get it) and attempt changing goverment strategy.

Incinerator manufacturers and waste associations quote scientific research against claims of “killer toxins” and meeting EU Guidelines – Who do we believe?

From the online research the word independant is not one that can be associated with Dr C plus the fact no consideration is given to the needs of our island and our infrastructure then can we really rely on the words of this so-called independant?

Spruce/Guernsey7 – thank you for ensuring this gets the correct hearing and views of all deputies can be heard

Report abuse

193

Stephen John

PeterC

Would you really expect those with a financial interest to do anything other than play down the environmental issues.

Your back hand swipe at Dr Connett lacks credibility for the simple reason you have not supported your comment with any evidence.

And by the way what credibility does Spruce have when he voted for the rallying behind the flag vote of unity, and supported the PSD Press release also stressing unity?

Report abuse

195

Sean McManus

In an earlier post I indicated that I would return to the issues raised by the political handling of the requete lodged by Deputy Spruce and his co-signatories.

This is all the more pertinent following the remarks made by Advocate Ferbrache on the Radio Guernsey ‘phone-in last Sunday. In addition, today’s edition of the Press highlights some of the concerns identified by a series of former members of the States. (See separate thread.)

Deputy Spruce and his colleagues have every right to submit their requete. The key issue is whether that course of action represents sound political judgement in the current circumstances. I contend that it does not.

Some commentators refer to a lack of leadership in the States. Interestingly, both the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister (acting in his capacity as Minister of PSD) won plaudits for their demonstration of clear leadership in taking the States forward together (by 38 to 2 with 6 abstentions) at the end of the debate around the successful Lowe amendment to the Kuttelwascher requete.

In my view it would have been a further demonstration of good leadership if senior and more experienced politicians had offered advice counselling against the submission of this requete. It is, of course, possible that such counsel has been offered and declined but we still await confirmation.

It would be fascinating to know whether our eminant former politicians would now be prepared to advise Deputy Spruce and his co-signatories to withdraw their requete “in the interests of good governance”.

Report abuse

197

rosie

Ray.

I totally agree. It would be an important lesson in democracy. We have a democratic right to peaceful protest and teaching our kids to be actively involved in the political process of their community should be regarded as an important part of their education.

Their has been much in the news about the abusive behaviour towards Deputies. As well as being generally unproductive, such behaviour is insidious, unpleasant and plain wrong. When we vote in our politicians, we do not absolve ourselves of all responsibility for the actions they make which are done in our name. We have a duty to keep ourselves informed and that should be done through civil and courteous dialogue, and peaceful protest is a fine way to demonstrate the strength of feeling. We should teach our children that so that they do not resort to the abusive message route later in life.

Report abuse

199

Sean McManus

Stephen

I cannot deny the centrality of cost; it featured as a core issue in the consideration of the EFW plant… as indeed it would of any other “waste” strategy.

That said, one might assume that 38 members of the States, including all five members of T and R, must have felt sufficiently comfortable with the cost implications of the substantive Kuttelwascher requete (as amended) to afford it their votes. Not one of the five members of T and R spoke or voted against or even abstained.

Like so many other islanders, I remain deeply, deeply sceptical of the cost and the financial risk balance consequences of adpoting the Suez/Sita EFW proposals; hence my voting record on this matter to date. However, the salient consideration in this post remains that of political judgement.

Report abuse