Winning back what is already lost
Thursday 18th March 2010, 2:30PM GMT.
IN TODAY’S Guernsey Press, Deputy Tony Spruce sets out in detail the reasons why he is asking the States to revisit the incineration debate, a decision that has exposed him and his family to unwarranted and unacceptable levels of abuse and threats.
It is clear from his letter that he is motivated by what he believes is best for Guernsey and because he and his supporters do not accept that there is any logic to the anti-incineration campaign or the last-minute decision to dump Suez.
Whatever the merits of the two opposing camps on what is a very emotive topic, it is clear that one of the undesirable consequences of this debate and others like it is that the reputation of government is suffering badly.
When former States members of the calibre of Roydon Falla acknowledge the accuracy of Advocate Peter Ferbrache’s assessment that this Assembly is an absolute shambles, things are bad indeed.
The Treasury and Resources minister has complained that deputies are not held in high esteem, and in that he is partially correct. Some individuals are and he is one of them. Collectively, however, it is probably true that a majority of islanders do not view the Assembly with respect and admiration, to use one definition.
But did they ever? Before the 1948 Reform Laws, government wasn’t even democratic and even after power was placed in the hands of (then) 33 elected people’s representatives, the complaint was that they were all toffs or rich growers.
While the States may have become more egalitarian over the years – and lost its links with the island’s wealth creators along the way – there is another change: the way individuals behave in committee, in public and in the Chamber is no longer always statesman-like.
Islanders are aware of that and the impact it has on the decision-making process, with personalities rather than policies taking centre stage.
And that, of course, has nothing to do with the machinery of government but everything to do with self-discipline and a willingness to compromise for the benefit of the island.
The brutal truth is that if States members collectively want respect, they have to earn what they themselves have lost.
- You will find Deputy Spruce’s letter in our online ‘You Say’ section. Click here, then scroll down the page.
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
I see that Spruce in his letter is claiming that the Suez contract has been terminated.
Is anyone aware that the contract had been signed. If it had it would have been in the past month as Flouquet assured Radio G listeners that it has not been signed.
Where lies the truth?
Report abuse
Stephen,
although badly worded, I read and understood that to mean that their status as preferred bidder had been revoked. I believe there would have been some sort of binding contract for preferred bidder status which would hold Guernsey accountable for costs incurred in reaching that stage should we pull out.
On the subject of the Spruce letter there is plenty that irks me about it :
He begins by saying he wants to correct misinformation and then goes on to produce his own misinformation and half truths / stories:
1) He claims that the states decision only won by 1 vote – half truth – The amendment to a requette won by 1 vote, the requette (as amended) then went on to win 38 – 2 including his own vote for the requette !!! Of course the reason he voted pour was because he was tired after a long day’s debating.
2) He states that the cost to dispose of waste currently is £136 – misinformation – this is the charge for disposal, the cost is actually far lower. This is a revenue generator for PSD and the revenue is used to fund other PSD services. As stated in the July 09 Billet XX, PSD has also requested additional funding from Treasury and resources to fill this loss of revenue for them ( if I remember correctly it was around £1m pa). Thats an additional ~10%pa on top of the well publicised figures for accepting suez.
3) He states the additional cost per household would be 50p – He is stating the same amount that Shane Langlois has stated on these forums. Basically £2.15 per week would be paid per household. Not disputing the figures, he just (tactically?) omits the fact that a very high proportion of that £2.15 would be paid outside of the Guernsey economy, taxes etc would be lost resulting in lower available funding for other services.
4) “Guernsey imports large volumes of freight” – true. On the Sunday phone in, he also mentioned this and went on to say how environmentally unfriendly the prospect of burning fuel to move recyclates to the UK for reuse would be. To me, burning fuel to send empty ships back to the UK etc is far more wasteful.
5) He ends with a question “Do they truely believe it is possible to persuade everyone to massively reduce waste levels without draconian legislation?” – simple answer is yes. Stop thinking that you must force people. Incentives will work where legislation fails – polluter pays policy with punitive mixed load disposal fees will soon see people CHOOSE to change their habits. The commercial waste portion of our residual waste is large, if there is a cheaper option for commercial waste, it is inevitable that it will be pursued to keep costs down – thats how business works. Take wood for example its already been stated in the press a couple of weeks ago that it could be shipped for recycling at a cost of £106 per ton. Thats a saving to business of £69 per ton. If the waste stream reduces because businesses find more economical routes to disposal then the Guernsey tax payer will be paying far more than £175 per ton / 50p per week per household as the majority of the costs are fixed irrespective of tonnage that passes the Suez gates.
Report abuse
Just double checked … the loss of revenue to PSD is actually £1.7m per annum !!! as per section 10.2 of July 09 Billet XX
Report abuse
Jamie
I hope you are right about the form of wording.
I made my comments because Deputy Spruce is so keen to stress that those who voted against the Suez proposal were ignorant of the true facts.
A bit rich from someone who doesn’t bother to get his own facts right. What say you?
Report abuse
Jamie
When I made my previous post I could only see the first paragraph of your post.
Now that it is all available you make some very good points.
Your point five is very true.
Report abuse
Stephen,
attached to the Billet XX of July 09 (appendix 4), is a sample contract for preferred bidder status which I presume is what the states agreed to sign at that sitting.
It specifies get out clauses which interestingly seem to differ greatly from the £3.2m figure that seems to keep getting bandied around.
Point 8 says:
SoG will make a payment to you upon signature by both parties to this LOI of
0.5% of the capital cost for the Plant on the basis of a Euro to Sterling exchange
rate of 1.1, namely £399,081, three hundred and ninety nine thousand and eighty
one pounds sterling, towards the costs
Point 3 says:
3. For the avoidance of doubt, subject to Paragraphs 0 to 0, SoG in its absolute
discretion reserves the right to give to you written notice of, withdrawal of your
Preferred Bidder status and/or SoG’s decision to withdraw from the procurement
process without payment of any compensation or incurring any liability to you.
The way I read that is we paid them £399k when we said they were preferred bidder. There is then a clause saying we can pull out at this stage without further costs to SoG. So where does the infamous £3.2m come from ?
Reading these billets etc is a bit of a bore tbh so it is feasible I have missed or misconstrued something. Worth reading and coming to your own conclusions as to what exactly is going on …. in or out of camera.
http://www.gov.gg/ccm/policy-and-hr/billets–resolutions/2009/july/billet-detat-xx-2009-july.en
Report abuse
Dep Spruce’s letter is extraordinary in that it claims to want to ‘redress the misinformation being circulated’ and then proceeds to dish a whole new slew of misinformation out. Jamie has picked up on some of them and there are plenty more.
The plant will not improve our carbon footprint (as he suggests) when compared to other forms of waste management….. it only does if you compare it to our current form of landfill which no-on is suggesting continues.
He also says that the energy generated will replace our oil imports. Firstly, burning MSW generates similar CO2 to burning oil and if you include the biogenic feedstock, (which you should do since it is included when talking of landfill emissions) it generates more CO2. Furthermore, in order to reduce our CO2 emissions, we should be looking to replace our oil generated energy with as much low carbon EDF energy as possible and even hopefully, within the next 15-20years, marine current turbine energy…. in which case, the carbon-rich incinerator energy will be replacing either very low or zero emission energy. Not clever!
He talks of an ‘integrated ash processing facility’. What is that? I understood (when I asked Suez) that the ash is simply allowed to sit in bunkers for 6 months or so, to ‘stabilise’. Nothing is done to it…. it just apparently sits there. (and then no-one still knows what happens to it then.)
He states that kerbside collections would have a ‘considerable cost’ and would only achieve a small gain. Currently we are recycling approx 36%…… kerbside would raise that to 70% ish if you include food waste….. so not so small. And of course, with recycling at that level there would be no need for an expensive end-of-line solution which is the ‘considerable cost’ we should be really trying to avoid.
And then there is the comment about ‘draconian legislation’ needed to ‘massively reduce residual waste levels’ when in the same paper, there is the story of a boy of 7 who managed to get a St P.P. business to reduce their waste by 50% by asking his mum to install recycling bins in the office!! It is all about making it as easy as possible for everyone to do the right thing….. childs play really!
Report abuse
Just had another thought re my point 3 above :
“3) He states the additional cost per household would be 50p – He is stating the same amount that Shane Langlois has stated on these forums. Basically £2.15 per week would be paid per household. Not disputing the figures, he just (tactically?) omits the fact that a very high proportion of that £2.15 would be paid outside of the Guernsey economy, taxes etc would be lost resulting in lower available funding for other services.”
If you then take account of the additional £1.7m pa PSD is requesting in the requette (Which is not included in any of the cost calculations of the Suez project) :
10.2 The long term plan is that the costs of procuring and operating the waste plant
should be covered by the amount charged per tonne. If this is followed through
it will mean that once built and operational there will be no surplus available to
spend on other general revenue services such as highway maintenance and sewer
repairs. In this respect the surplus, and the funding of recycling initiatives
currently sourced from the surcharge at Mont Cuet, amounts to approximately
£1.7m per annum. It will therefore be necessary for the States to direct the
Treasury and Resources Department to take this into account when
recommending Departmental cash allocations from 2012 onwards.
Long story short : £1.7m divided out weekly between 21000 homes is around £1.50 per week.
Therefore the TRUE cost per household would go from the current £1.65 to £3.65 per week. 50p of the increase would probably be seen in the refuse rates, £1.50 of the increase would come from general revenue. A very sneaky way (IMO) of making something appear artificially economic.
Report abuse
Jamie
Many thanks for pointing out the liability if the States withdrew its preferential tenderer status from Suez.
You have done a fine job of disentangling the figures.
Report abuse