States Meeting Transcript - 09/07/2008

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 9th JULY 2008

PUBLIC BUSINESS – RESUMPTION..........................................................3

1. Energy From Waste Facility: Establishment and Acceptance of Tender (P.72/2008)..3

Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade:..........................................................3

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondre of St. Lawrence : ..............................................3
2. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ..............................................8
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:.......................................................9
4. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:........................................................9
5. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity :.................................................14 Senator T.J. Le Main: ........................................................................15
6. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................15
7. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................17
8. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................20
9. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................21 Senator T.J. Le Main: ........................................................................22 Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.............................................................22 Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................22 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment:............................23
10. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................23
11. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................26
12. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................30
13. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:........................................................31

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................33 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................33

PUBLIC BUSINESS - RESUMPTION..........................................................33

14. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................33
15. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................35
16. Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M., of St. Martin : ................................................40
17. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................41
18. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................42 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:.....................................................................43 Senator T.J. Le Main: ........................................................................43
19. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................43
20. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): ..........47 The Bailiff :...................................................................................53

2. Energy From Waste Facility: Funding (P.73/2008)....................................53

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ....................54

2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................54
3. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................54
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................57
5. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................57
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................57
7. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................58
8. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier:...................................................59
9. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................59
10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................61
11. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................61
12. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter:....................................................62
13. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................62
14. Deputy P.N. Troy : ......................................................................62
15. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................63

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................66 The Bailiff :...................................................................................66 Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):....66 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................66 The Bailiff :...................................................................................66

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................66

The Roll was called and the Deputy Greffier led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – RESUMPTION

1. Energy from Waste Facility: Establishment and Acceptance of Tender (P.72/2008) The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The debate continues on the proposition of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade :

Yes, I wonder if I could just clarify a point made yesterday by Deputy Duhamel. He stated in his capacity as Chairman of the Environment Panel that the Environment Panel has been existing with one officer since before Christmas with no attempt at having tried to replace the officer off ill. In actual fact, the officer's first day off ill was 22nd January, not before Christmas. The officer has had certainly until now 24 weeks worth of sick notes, but I have quite a dossier here. Every attempt has been made to provide additional support for the Environment Panel by the Scrutiny Officers. It really is not fair, it is not equitable to say that there has been no support. If Members would like to see the details, I will not go through them all. I have 3 pages here of facts and I also have a long list of topics that have been covered over the last 6 months or so. If any Member would like to see this, I will be delighted to show it to them.

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondre of St. Lawrence :

I hope you are all feeling refreshed after a good day yesterday and looking forward to more enlightened debate this morning. I have managed to resist the temptation up to now to use the rather worn statement about a group of politicians talking a load of old rubbish, or perhaps I should say about a load of old rubbish, but that rather denigrates what is an essential debate that we have been having since yesterday. When I first came to this subject I was fairly ambivalent; if recycling could solve all of our problems, then great. Alternatively, we already burn our waste; therefore, there should not be anything wrong with continuing to burn it, especially if it is a lot cleaner. Over time, particularly through my Treasury involvement, I have been reasonably involved in seeing the information being gathered and presented that backs-up the present case. I concur with the view this is not a decision that can be delayed or deferred any longer. This is not one of those decisions where delay just means a building lies empty or a plot of land lies undeveloped. This decision has very real health and financial consequences. Before I go into the main speech, Sir, I would like to address some of the comments that were made during the course of the debate yesterday. I would like to welcome Deputy Duhamel's corrections on, for example, the Scrutiny comments regarding, for example, the difference between energy and electrical efficiency. I do have to say I was disappointed when those comments were reported on the radio I think last week. I assume his correction also extends to the comments on page 3 of the Scrutiny report of comments.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour :

A point of correction perhaps. The calculations if they are done properly still show that it will be a disposal operation.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondre:

All I can say is I have a note from the department which states that energy efficiency at the plant - I cannot find the note - is in the order of 63 per cent and that the current directives require 60 per cent as of now, Sir, and that the electrical efficiency, which is what the Deputy quoted on the radio and on Talkback - because I listened to it again last night - is 24 per cent. Yes, it was a very sad listening. But also I presume that correction then applies to the facts in the comments in the scrutiny report where it describes the proposed incinerators not being an Energy from Waste plant but rather it will be a waste of energy plant. I think hopefully we have corrected that comment because particularly given that these remarks were made on Talkback, I do agree with Deputy

Duhamel, we do not want to run the risk of allegations of spin or figures being taken out of context. In relation to the look and the location of the building which has been raised from time to time during yesterday, Sir, the location was agreed at the last debate and that at the end of the day is democracy. I suspect that certain Members remain unhappy about the look or the location of the building; if you prefer, the visual aspect of the building. The look is a matter for planning. What we are debating today is the preferred solution. Whatever solution is ultimately decided upon will be at La Collette. Location is not what we are debating today. I hope Members as well have also had the chance to read the letter to Senator Walker from Fichtner, the T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) consultants. I would say it covers an awful lot of the basic concerns that have been expressed already. Both the Connétable of St. Martin and Deputy Power refer to the burning of plastics. It does depend upon the type of plastic we are talking about. If we have high grade clean plastic, it will be recycled - and that is referred to in the packs that Members have had - but low grade contaminated plastic, there are markets for them. They exist in the Far East. I would have to say they are fairly questionable. Those are the pictures you see of very low paid workers or children or whatever it is digging through rather nasty piles of rubbish. Trying to recycle those and certainly using them for the primary markets in the Far East is more questionable, but energy recovery through the proposed E.f.W. (Energy from Waste) facility is considered preferable. Hopefully on a slightly more positive note, I would obviously draw Members.. I do not know if they have read the letters; hopefully they have. From the comments circulated from the Medical Officer of Health yesterday, 2 comments I thought were particularly helpful: one of which is the reference to the head of Health Protection who has described to the Medical Officer of Health the extensive investigation that had been undertaken. He does recommend the current strategy as the optimal way forward for the Island using tried and tested technology. Obviously that is presumably from a health perspective. The Medical Officer of Health concludes that the need to replace the incinerator at Bellozanne is urgent given the already unsatisfactory performance of the current plant and given that the new plant will take some time to build and commission. The point you need to know, Sir, is those are professionals. They are not all from within the T.T.S. Department and I would treat them as reasonably independent, basically backing-up the case that has been presented to us so far for supporting the proposition. Let us just remember where we are and why we are here. This debate has been going on for a long time. I think it was some 6 years ago the cost of this project was around £60 million. We are now at £105 million and my understanding is that is for a smaller plant. To an extent that is irrelevant. The point is that the delays have cost the taxpayer huge amounts of money and, in addition and more importantly, have restricted the suppliers we can use. The key thing that we all seem to forget to an extent is that we are living on an Island that is 9 miles by 5 miles. We have very little choice about exporting untreated rubbish to our main neighbouring countries. We have to come up with a solution that will cover our

requirements for the next 25 to 30 years that meets our needs and our requirements as an Island. That will, of course, be different to a town in the U.K. (United Kingdom) who can transport products to different plants by truck for different treatment. We cannot do that. Equally, Sir, I am not going to base my decision today on an article in a Parish magazine which I read yesterday. We are looking for robust solutions. As an aside and something I certainly was not aware of, the Department of T.T.S. has dealt with 2 suppliers in France and is also conducting a trial at present as to the feasibility of shipping to France. But at the moment when the Euro is at its best for this type of project, even now it is still cheaper to ship to the U.K. I confirmed that yesterday with the officers. The other point to bear in mind is that all the recycling generally - not entirely always but generally - costs us something, i.e. on a net basis we are paying money out but with the exception of, yes, things like aluminium cans. Although we may get some form of revenue from every source, it is still not enough to cover the costs. I think far more demonstrable in terms of the urgency of the case, the current plant is breaking down. I do not think anyone can deny that. We have had the problems of the grab earlier this year. We have the current issues of - I cannot even say the word today - sulphuric acid corroding the crown, if you like, of the chimney stack. We are crossing our fingers hoping that it can last until a new plant is built. There is no kidding, no niceties about that. Those are the facts. There is no more time. Consider the issue of other technologies and I think it is fair to say the department has considered over 60 suppliers of various technologies and whether they are appropriate to Jersey and whether they are robust enough for this Island. Do not forget again if it goes wrong, we have a serious problem because we have huge amounts of waste building up and basically you end up with rodent infestation and other health issues if it is not controlled. The reference in terms of robustness for those technologies is to start off with they have been in operation for 2 years and for the operation to be comparable with Jersey requirements in terms of tonnage. That is not unreasonable and that seems eminently sensible to me. Again, as I said, I unfortunately listened to Talkback again last night on this again and would just like to reiterate to Members that the decision of the States on 13th July 2005 was to adopt the proposition as amended. The proposition - and obviously I have summarised it slightly - was to charge the Committee to investigate fully alternative and conventional technologies and to recommend a preferred solution for a replacement of the Bellozanne incinerator to the States. To clarify, a solution was instructed and a solution has been proposed. That proposition did not request multiple options to be presented to the States to be decided upon. In other words, it did not say: "We are going to come to the States with 2 options and you can choose between them." "We are going to bring you a preferred option." It is no good basing matters on what was said or inferred in a debate over 3 years ago. It is what the proposition said. I have forgotten how many times Members have told me to vote upon the proposition, not what was said about the proposition. Let us look at it slightly cynically. Are the officers or the consultants biased? I have raised this and all I can say is I am satisfied that the officers are sufficiently open-minded that if there was one glaring technology that suited Jersey that did the job as well as Energy from Waste, I believe they would have grabbed it, particularly if it was cheaper. The new Director for Waste has categorically stated he would be highly insulted if that allegation was made, having worked with and implemented a number of different technologies in past positions, including anaerobic digestion. If you look at the white ring binder file that Members have all been given, there you will find a comment from the Fichtner consultants to the effect that they have been involved with over 10 U.K. mechanical biological treatment plants (that is M.B.T.) as well as steam autoclave projects. They have expanded upon this in their letter of yesterday but their professional view - what is being proposed today - their preferred solution is also the most deliverable and sustainable option for Jersey. That solution is the proposition facing us today. Those are top notch professionals and I would consider them independent. It is their opinion that this is the best option. Most recently Members have received the review from Deloittes as to the best financial option. Again based on net present values, which it appears they have challenged, the option being presented is the best option. As far as I am concerned that is another set of professionals, another independent opinion. But let us just consider the Juniper report which obviously those opposed to this proposition have placed quite a lot of emphasis upon. There are some caveats on some of these but I will deal with those afterwards. Paragraph 3.5 states that the use of a modern, well-designed Energy from Waste plant is increasingly accepted as best practice. Paragraph 3.15 states: "In our opinion independent experts would not judge continued operation of Bellozanne as compatible with complying with best international standards." I think everyone agrees with that. Paragraphs 3.39 and 3.40 state: "The States-appointed consultant's report stresses the need for the residual waste treatment facility to use proven technology. We concur with this view. If whichever process was selected was subsequently proved to be unreliable, the Island would face considerable difficulties in managing its waste in a safe and effective manner." Paragraph 3.42 for people trying to keep up: "In our view those in Jersey who champion novel technologies as better solutions for the Island's waste need to recognise the reasonableness of this type of procurement test, i.e. what T.T.S. are doing." I suppose an example would be that the Connétable of St. Helier referred to a Jersey company of a trial plant.

It sounds fantastic but he referred to a trial plant. This, therefore, implied that it is not presently a robust solution. It does not pass the test of 2 years and 2 reference plants on a full commercial scale which has been agreed by Juniper. It is purely a demonstration plant and you cannot rely on that for the future of waste handling in Jersey. Juniper continues at 3.52: "We are not convinced that any robust, deliverable and proven technology that would meet the criteria adopted by T.T.S. and which we are recommending to continue to be used would necessarily be cheaper. We believe it would be a mistake to adopt preferentially any alternative technology solely on the basis of its indicative costs." Basically because they rather felt these were likely to increase as matters are finalised. Juniper have the following cautions about alternative technologies: "We cannot at this time say that any of these is better than the E.f.W. approach currently proposed. Indeed, all have significant disadvantages." One comment from one technology is that the leading suppliers of this type of process are not supplying it in Europe. That is pretty key because we would not be able to get it even if it matched our needs. To continue: "The issues of finding sustainable on-Island outlets for the outputs from an A.D. (anaerobic digestion) facility are complex." I hope Members get my drift. The Juniper Report can be interpreted a number of ways.  To me, whichever way one looks at it, there is a huge degree of caution pervading the entire report. With that in mind I intended to meet on Monday with the Juniper consultants. I have to say I left slightly disappointed as I was no clearer as to their conclusions. They rather appeared to be in the position of saying that they could not categorically conclude one way or another because they needed further information or because circumstances had changed. It is fair to say that their review is a preliminary one, but I am also unclear as to how much information they did not receive and the causes of that lack of receipt. Therefore, what I am forced to take with me from the report are the following 2 sentences: "In our opinion, handling all of the Island's residual waste within a single E.f.W. is an acceptable way of dealing with the problems." There are caveats to that sentence but that is what it says. It also says: "In our opinion, handling all of the Island's residual waste within a single E.f.W. is technically, commercially and environmentally sound." The caveats are, basically, is this the only practical approach? All they are arguing about is whether there is a better solution, not whether this is a good solution. All the professionals seem to accept that this is a good solution and I have to say I found the letter from Fichtner again particularly helpful. As far as I am concerned, we are at the point where we need to take a view as to whether the solution is acceptable to Jersey now, not because something may change in 5 years' time but we are unclear exactly how. We need to consider the position of us today. The analogy I use is buying a new computer. I will look round, consider the various new gadgets that are available and try to spec it to have the best hardware I can

afford: memory, size of the hard drive, chip speed, et cetera. But I have to accept it will be out of date as soon as I buy it, but I cannot afford to keep waiting indefinitely because my current P.C. (personal computer) which is already well out of date may keel over and then I will no longer have the luxury of time. That happened to me 6 years ago when I was drafting and doing up our wedding invitations. So I can say it can happen at a click and, boy, is it rather inconvenient at that time, especially when there are other parties involved. To use Deputy Power's analogy of cars, I think he referred to driving a Morris Minor, but do Members remember the Sinclair C5? What I would say is that being first with innovative products is not necessarily a good thing. This is a little more serious than a lost wedding invite. It has health implications, environmental implications and international implications just to start with. One of the key areas has been food waste. Again we go back to Juniper and the agricultural industry. Juniper does state it does not support the use of mixed waste derived compost to be applied to agricultural land. The consultants accept that there are logistical and economic issues associated with the adoption of pan-Island separate collection of food waste. They accept that at the present time consumer confidence and supermarket purchasing preferences remain a significant concern. Again there are obviously caveats there, but when they were pressed on the matter on Monday all the consultants were able to say is that the future is less clear as regards acceptability of food waste compared to the past when it was not acceptable. In short, I understand it depends on the use of the land. I would also like to remind Members of the correction made yesterday in respect of the comments by Deputy Duhamel concerning a statement made by the British Retail Consortium in December 2007. I am not going to read out the whole statement, but major concerns are expressed regarding animal-based compost made from either animal blood, bone, meat and entrails which is applied to either permanent graze land or land that is going into grassland. The important thing to remember is that statement does continue on and I do

not think that was made clear yesterday: "We are also concerned about the application of this type of compost to crops." To put it in context, the remains of a chicken would be defined as bone and meat and perhaps even blood depending on how well it had been cooked. It is not just stuff from the abattoir and so it captures normal kitchen waste. Can we use the stuff on non-produce land, land used for grazing? Not according to their statement. According to that statement there is still the issue of potential contamination with regards animal diseases. I do not know if it is strictly relevant but think back to foot and mouth of a few years ago. What are the practicalities? Are we seriously going to be asking users who graze animals to give up land for 6 months or even one or 2 years to allow food waste compost to be put back on the land and left for a while? The key factor is the period of crop rotation. Basically we do not have the space to do this. Again what would be the impact if we eventually can do food waste; if technology changes? Now, if all of these reservations are overcome, and that includes not putting Jersey Royal out of business, it would reduce the requisite capacity of the plant by 2 or 3 per cent. That is not exactly going to make a significant change on our requirements, is it? Can the plant be flexible in operation? Yes, although Juniper disagrees, it is demonstrably the case the plant can operate as low as between 36,000 and 37,000 tonnes. It is possible to switch a stream off and then back on again. It can be flexed. That has been confirmed to us again as Members yesterday in writing. Bear in mind our current requirements are double that and that is with 30 per cent recycling as of last year. That is all based on the experience of T.T.S. of operating the current incinerator for a long period of time. It works. It can be done. Therefore, we are not going to have a plant which cannot deal flexibly. Can we recycle more? We are going to have to. That was covered again last night. But remember the size of the plant requires kerbside collection and 36 per cent recycling. We have to get up to 36 per cent and sustain it otherwise the plant will be too small. I heard a comment yesterday from one of the Parishes saying: "If we build the incinerator we will not need to do kerbside collection." We have to have both. The plant itself will also be designed with the ability to add district heating if necessary at some future date and that would also increase its efficiency rating above the 61 to 63 per cent that we are being quoted. Let us get back to reality here to July 2008; to today with a

dirty incinerator that is breaking down. The proposition notes that 4 companies were short-listed. Lentjes is referred to in 4.12 of the Juniper Report. They were short-listed and they withdrew. Ener-G is referred to in 4.35 and they withdrew. Cyclerval was the original partner of Earth Tech and withdrew to be replaced by Fisia Babcock. It is not as if the department has been rejecting all the suppliers that Juniper suggested. Circumstances are building up against us. The fact that Guernsey rejected an E.f.W. plant has left some suppliers an uncertain view of how committed the Channel Islands are to this approach. It is very expensive putting these types of tenders together. There is far better and more certain demand in the U.K. and in mainland Europe, so if we reject this proposition it will be incredibly difficult to restart it and it will cost us more millions. Before finishing, I want to reiterate a number of points. The consultants consider the solution in this proposition to be the most deliverable and sustainable option. Juniper state that the solution is technically, commercially and environmentally sound. If Members have a look at this Fichtner letter, they list various types of alternative technologies that they have dealt with. They list anaerobic digestion plants, mechanical biological treatment, mechanical heat treatment, pyrolysis - I will get my teeth in order in a minute - and gasification projects, material recycling facilities, in- vessel composting plants and civic amenity sites. The conclusion on that first page of their letter is: "We, therefore, state without fear of contradiction that we are perfectly placed to provide you with impartial advice on the best selection of facilities to handle Jersey's waste." They state: "Jersey is an Island without alternative waste disposal routes." They talk about the problems on kitchen waste. They say: "Without a secure route the recycling of kitchen waste cannot be considered to be a safe option for the Island. It should remain open for the future but it does not significantly impact the capacity of the E.f.W." They confirm the flexibility of the plant and its ability to operate between 36,000 tonnes and 105,000 tonnes a year. That should address load factor issues raised by Deputy Power. They confirm at the end of it - I will assure Members I will be very shortly finished but it is important: "We confirm that we believe that the recommended option for a new plant with

a capacity of 105,000 tonnes per annum is the correct solution for the Island; a deliberately conservative one best suited to your situation with no alternative disposal route. It retains sufficient flexibility to allow you to continue to improve recycling or reduce waste flows if this is deemed economically and environmentally beneficial." That is the summary. We already burn waste. This is going to be a lot cleaner. We will be recycling more because we have to. It is a prudent approach. I am risk-averse on these types of projects. I do not want to take risks with the future of the Island's health. I consider the work to have been done. I consider the detail that we received to be appropriate. I consider the consequences of rejecting this proposition to be unacceptable for the sustainable health of this Island. I genuinely urge Members to support the proposition.

Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

May I be allowed to correct the Deputy ? The Deputy quoted me. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, briefly, Deputy .

Deputy S. Power:

Very briefly, Sir. The Deputy quoted me as saying that I was suggesting the Island might try unproven technology or innovative products and be first. I did not suggest that and I quoted 2 examples of the technology I was suggesting, which was Bristol City Council and the Royal Navy.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

If I could just mention before I call the next speaker, I do have quite a long list of Members waiting to speak, so if any Member has indicated their willingness to speak and has not been called yet, you are on the list I think.

2. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour :

I certainly will not - hopefully - take long on this. We have had a lot of speeches about the problems getting to the situation that we are now. It is not worth worrying about. We are where we are. We cannot change that. We have a plant that is failing and we have a plant that is putting out pollutants. We have to do something different. The proposed solution I think has one or 2 problems. The building we are looking at is very, very large. I know the Minister for Planning and Environment said that it was a good design, it had good detailing and materials were good, but the

Gherkin is a good design, it has good detailing and the materials are good, but it is huge and you cannot disguise the fact that it is a huge building. What we have is a large, square building. Good design is better than bad but it will still be a large, square building. We have an issue I think with safety. The Deputy of St. Peter has mentioned the fuel farm down there. I am concerned about that. The fact that only a few people may die if it goes wrong is not really the answer. One point that has not been made is that if we really had a bad catastrophe with it we could lose our power and not only that but we could also lose our ability to get rid of the Island's waste. That could take a long time to put right. We would be in real trouble. I am not sure that enough work has been done to protect that. I hoped that they would do enough bunding and building of walls to try and shelter but I do not know if that has been considered. With the proposed solution we could run at lower levels of use than has been envisaged as a maximum. That is definitely a plus because I think people do want to recycle. Deputy Duhamel has done a lot of work in looking at alternatives. I have to say I do find these very attractive. The idea of a smaller, cheaper plant I think appeals to everybody. The problem as we have seen is that there really is not a proven track record for a lot of the items we are looking at. The solution that the Constable of St. Helier hoped to have with the trial plant was very attractive but, as has already been said, it was a trial. People do want to recycle. I am going to ask my parishioners in the next few days if they want us to investigate kerb collections [Approbation]. Thank you. At least my Deputies are supportive. I think people will want us to do that but there is a cost and we have to investigate the best ways of doing it. I think everybody wants to do this. The resulting cut-down in the amount of material burnt I do not think is that much of a problem. I would rather we ran a new plant at half stream or on one stream rather than 2 than have a lot of extra waste being burnt. I would rather we went down the recycling route. The plant they are proposing can be run at a lower rate. I have been told it would prolong its life so it may be there is a benefit there. One thing I believe the previous speaker mentioned, we do need to be self-sufficient. It is all very well saying we will export our materials to other places to be dealt with but we are an Island. We have to be self-sufficient in power even though we import all of that. I believe we have to be self-sufficient in getting rid of our waste even though we may be able to get some of it off Island. We do have to be able to stand alone in an emergency. As I have said, I am concerned about the timescale. We have a problem now. Perhaps I am new to the States but I do feel that if people think that once this is voted out and we have to start again that we are going to go through the whole procedure and get it voted through by the States and get it built in less than 3 years, I am afraid they have a greater confidence in this House than I have. I think if we are back to square one we will be arguing again. Although a lot of work has been done I think it is going to take a long time to get us to the situation that we are now and then we have to build. Admittedly, new plants would be built quicker but I still do not think we are going to do it in 3 years and the plant we have is failing now. So that is the situation.  I do wish I could vote against this because I like the idea of the smaller, cheaper solutions. My heart says do that but my head says that as a Constable I have a responsibility to get rid of our parishioners' waste. I do not think we can gamble. Therefore, Sir, I think unless I hear something spectacularly different I am going to be voting for the proposition.

3. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

I will be very brief. I would like to start by congratulating the Transport and Technical Services Department, the welders and the repair gangs that have kept the Bellozanne unit running for so long, well beyond its useful life. I do not think anyone could argue the fact we definitely do need a new incinerator/Energy from Waste plant. It has been claimed that La Collette is the preferred site because any flue gases would be blown out to sea. As the prevailing wind is usually a south- westerly this would blow over St. Helier, St. Saviour and St. Clement. Ask any sailor, never throw into the wind. I just hope the gas cleaning units are top-of-the-range as promised. I understand the new Energy from Waste plant will be using the J.E.C. (Jersey Electricity Company) chimney. I was led to believe that flue gases cannot be transported horizontally from the Energy from Waste plant to the power station chimney, so I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify this point. Besides the operational issues, I am also concerned about the actual size of the new plant; not just operationally but physically. Looking at the drawings, the height of the new plant will be nearly halfway up the J.E.C. chimney and will be a complete eyesore from La Collette right the way round to Havre des Pas and well out to sea. What would be the cost of the proposed emergency road running round from Green Street to La Collette? Could the Green Street promenade be converted at a later date? The questions I have, Sir, are: (1) flue gases through the shared chimney; (2) actual size of the Energy from Waste plant; (3) possibility of an emergency road; and (4) are flue gas cleaning units going to be top-of-the-range?

4. Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade :

Cornwall County Council are looking at putting in an incinerator. They have posted some information on their website. They are looking at an incinerator that is 240,000 tonnes per annum of waste, when you look at their website, and the Constable of St. Helier alluded to this yesterday. From incineration there are large amounts of ash generated. The main solid residue is bottom ash, which is basically similar to the ash below the grates of a domestic fire. That accounts for 25 to 30 per cent of the original weight of the waste and about 10 per cent by volume. Metals are also recovered from the bottom ash which can be recycled. The remaining 90 per cent can be used in construction or can be land-filled in the U.K. after testing to ensure that it is not hazardous. My question really for the Minister is that what will happen to all of the metals recovered from the

bottom ash and where will the remaining 90 per cent of bottom ash be disposed of? Then, of course, not only do you have to deal with the bottom ash but then you have to deal with fly ash. Fly ash is the term used for the material removed during the gas cleaning process. It consists of small quantities of flue particles trapped in the gas stream. The largest proportion are reagents such as lime or activated carbon and salts which we use to clean the gases. Fly ash and air pollution control residue represent 2 to 4 per cent by weight of the input waste and the material has to be treated as hazardous waste. In the U.K. it is sent to landfill in separate, specialised, secure landfills or in a separate cell of a landfill. It is a hazardous material which really has to be treated very carefully. There is no hazardous waste landfill in Cornwall. What they are having to do is consider sending it to the nearest facility in Gloucestershire. In Jersey we do not have hazardous waste landfill as such and I really again would like to ask the Minister what will happen to this hazardous, toxic material - the fly ash - what will happen to it in Jersey? It is going to be sent to sealed pits but where are these sealed pits going to be? What sort of volume can we take? When we do this for the next 25 years we dig big pits over Jersey to put in our toxic ash; where are they going to be? I will come on to how much we might have in a minute so that you can see how many pits we might need. In Cornwall their 240,000 tonnes per annum waste plant will produce 48,000 tonnes of ash, so our plant will produce 21,000 tonnes of ash worked on the same basis. Of that 48,000 tonnes, 43,000 in Cornwall is proposed to be recycled as aggregate. The remaining 5,000 will be sent to landfill. So we will have 21,000 tonnes of ash and we will have a residue of about 2,200 if we could recycle all of that ash, but I do not believe that we do recycle all of it. Where is that all going to go, 21,000 tonnes of ash from Jersey? Then we have the fly ash which I mentioned before; highly toxic, highly dangerous. In Cardiff their 240,000 tonne plant will produce 7,000 tonnes of fly ash, so our plant will produce 3,060 tonnes of fly ash per annum based on the same figures given by the Cornwall County Council, because I have to work on Cornwall County Council's figures because we do not have any figures from our crowd here. States Members are flying totally in the dark. So we are going to have 3,060 tonnes of fly ash to dispose of and we are going to put that in pits. We have 3,060 tonnes per annum and we are going to have this going out for the next 25 years so we are going to have pits all over the place of toxic material. What is our department really going to do with it? Are they going to dispose of it correctly? The plant in Cornwall will also produce 264 tonnes of nitrogen oxide and we will produce 115 tonnes of nitrogen oxide but that is not really a worrying point at all. The main thing there is that we are going to have extraordinarily large tonnage of ash and toxic ash. We really do have to have a policy of how we are going to deal with it. We have seen no evidence at all of how we are going to dispose of 3,000 tonnes of fly ash every year for the next 20 years; 60,000 tonnes to be put in the ground; toxic material in our soil 60,000 tonnes. We have not got any figures from Transport and Technical Services about this at all in the documents. Members are not being kept fully informed. Also the battle lines are drawn over a Cardiff incinerator. They are proposing to have an incinerator in Cardiff. Friends of the Earth commented regarding the Cardiff incinerator. Mr. Julian Rosser, Director of the Earth Cymru .. I do not know how you say that. [Interruption] It is Welsh, yes, I know. He said: "Incineration is not the best way of dealing with waste. It means burning paper and plastics that should be recycled. It is not a renewable way of generating energy because so much of the fuel comes from plastics which are made from oil." That is one of the points about this whole incineration business is it is not the best way of dealing with waste at all. Recently the E.P. - the European Parliament - voted that by 2020, 50 per cent of the E.U.'s (European Union) household waste and 70 per cent of construction waste should be recycled. This really demonstrates that there is now a European wish to move towards higher recycling rates. We, of course, are going to have our great big incinerator burning everything under the sun that we can chuck into it and we will have a low recycling rate of 36 per cent where everyone else in Europe is heading to 50 or 60 per cent. We are going to throw tyres into our incinerator, as has been mentioned previously. When States Members had a presentation by T.T.S., I asked the Chief Officer whether we were still going to put tyres into the incinerator. The answer is, yes, we are going to put in 4,000 tonnes of tyres into the incinerator. There are ways that you can deal with tyres now. There are companies that

bale them up and they can be baled and used in construction. If you remember on rock faces where you have falling rock faces, you put gabions of stone inside a metal mesh and you can put tyres inside a metal mesh and that can be used as well. It works to good effect and has good drainage qualities and those can be used in other ways. Deputy Duhamel in the past has shown Members how tyres can be shredded and used in other manners as well. There are ways that you can deal with tyres but we are not going to do that because we are just going to chuck them into the incinerator. In fact, we are going to chuck pretty much everything into the incinerator because the thing with an incinerator is you have to feed the beast. That is what it is all about. Feed the beast. Keep throwing things in. Do not recycle anything because we need to keep throwing everything in. That is one of the problems. With computers "You put rubbish in, you get rubbish out" is the saying. Anyone who has used a computer; use a computer, you put rubbish in, you get rubbish out. The same thing is with an incinerator, you put toxins in and you get toxins out. We are going to have, remember, 3,000 tonnes of toxins every year to bury, as I said earlier. Transport and Technical Services are in my opinion currently totally irresponsible in putting highly toxic materials into Bellozanne. We have a letter from the Medical Officer of Health saying: "I am really concerned." I am not going to read it. She says she is really concerned and Members have this letter so they have seen it. She is really concerned about Bellozanne. There are toxins coming out and it is bad for everybody's health. So I ask: "But what are you going to do about it, Medical Officer of Health? Are you going to rush down there and stop them putting toxins into the incinerator? No? Why not?" Because maybe her department might have to prosecute another department for throwing in materials which are highly dangerous. We really are irresponsible; we should not be putting batteries in, we should not be putting tyres in, we should not be putting metals into the current incinerator. If it is failing, as we are told; T.T.S. are totally irresponsible in the way they are operating the plant at the moment, totally irresponsible. Quite frankly, they should be prosecuted, Sir. Someone should be prosecuting T.T.S. today. Someone from the Health Department should be running round there and checking all the levels of toxins coming out of the chimney. Now, in the U.K. there is a group, SITA, who own incinerators and they publish all of their toxins and their rates and their ash recovery, everything, all of the information is there in the

public domain, as to what is coming out of their incinerators. Here, it is all totally secret. Certainly, we should be publishing our tests. The public should know what is coming out of that flue and they should know how dangerous it is for them. But T.T.S. will still throw in tyres, they will still throw in batteries, they will still throw in plastics. Maybe I am wrong, I have not got a list of the things they are throwing in because I do not think there is one published, but I can tell you now, they are vastly irresponsible at the present time. Now, I spoke to Friends of the Earth and they sent me some documentation, and one of the things they pointed out is that incineration crowds-out recycling. Once you have got an incinerator and you have to keep throwing things into

it, there is no incentive after that to improve your recycling rate. So, you start with a 33 per cent recycling rate, as we have done, and then you say: "Well, we need to chuck as much in as possible. So, what we will do is we will give Deputy Duhamel a little extra 3 per cent; we will make it 36 per cent because he is giving us a bit of pressure on that, and then we will keep chucking everything into the incinerator and that will send him away and that will send his compatriots away, who are absolutely against this incinerator." Do you believe that once we have started on a 36 per cent recycling rate, they were going to try and increase it up to 70 per cent, like the rest of Europe, 60 per cent, 70 per cent in the rest of Europe? In Flanders - a district in Belgium - they recycle 71 per cent of municipal waste. We are going for 36 per cent. Wow, big stuff, hey? In Denmark, to demonstrate that incineration crowds-out recycling, I have got some regions in Denmark here. There is no way I can say these names; they are totally foreign to me but I will call them Region 1 and so on. So Region 1 has an incineration rate of 77 per cent and a landfill rate of 2 per cent and a recycling rate of 21 per cent. Region 2 has an incineration rate of 63 per cent, a landfill rate of 8 per cent and a recycling rate of 29 per cent. Region 3 has an incineration rate of 59 per cent, a landfill rate of 10 per cent and a recycling rate of 31 per cent. What that proves is that as soon as you go to incineration, you are dooming yourself to low recycling rates. Now, with the Cardiff

plant, in the year 2015 - the year that the Energy from Waste plant in Cardiff is expected to come on line - it is assumed that municipal solid waste of 222,000 tonnes will be input into the incinerator, with a recycling recovery performance of 129,000 tonnes, through recycling. So, that is 58 per cent recycling is going to be aimed for in Cardiff in 2015. We are going to be aiming, still, in 2015 - I would not be surprised - for 36 per cent, maybe 38 per cent. Goodness knows, but the point is that that leaves a residual waste through their incinerator of 93,000 tonnes in 2015 because they might have an incinerator but they are saying: "We will have an incinerator but we will recycle as much as possible and get a smaller incinerator", which is what they have done. They will have 93,000 tonnes to process on a population of 340,000. We are going to process 105,000 tonnes on a population of 100,000. So, if we tried to look at this objectively, we could have a totally different strategy. What I am saying is that this strategy is totally wrong. This strategy is totally out of step with the rest of Europe, where everyone in Europe is aiming to recycle 60 per cent of waste at least, and more, out into the future. Recycling in Europe is recognised as highly important. Recycling in Jersey is not recognised as highly important, as can be demonstrated by our commitment to a low recycling rate. We are taking on a policy which is out of step with the rest of Europe and it is criminal.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): I have resisted but I think, on a point..

Deputy P.N. Troy :

I am not giving way, Sir.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I think on a point of order, to suggest that the Department is indulging in criminal behaviour, I would ask the Deputy to withdraw that statement. I have listened to an awful lot..

Deputy P.N. Troy :

It is a policy, Sir. This is totally out of step with the rest of Europe.. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputies, will you both please sit down? Deputy Troy , will you please regain your seat when the Presiding Officer is speaking?

Deputy P.N. Troy :

Sorry?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Will you please regain your seat when the Presiding Officer is speaking, as per Standing Orders. Deputy P.N. Troy :

Yes, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think Deputy de Faye took the word "criminal" to mean "criminal" as in criminal prosecutions. I thought the Deputy was using it in the more liberal sense of saying it is outrageous or not the way to go.

Deputy P.N. Troy :

Outrageous, contemptible, in that sort of format, Sir. The Minister has demonstrated that he is ignoring the rest of Europe, Sir. He has demonstrated that he is taking us on a path which totally, for our Island, brings us into discredit environmentally, on a European basis. European M.E.P.s (Members of the European Parliament) have voted to create a recycling society.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputy , I am sorry, you will have to regain your seat again because we are becoming inquorate. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

[Interruption] Deputy Troy , please continue.

Deputy P.N. Troy :

The European Commission, as I said, has just voted that they will create an E.U.-wide recycling society. The Minister said yesterday: "Well, we are not members of the E.U.", so maybe that does not matter in his book. A recycling society across Europe, with a recycling target, as I said earlier, of 50 per cent of municipal waste and 70 per cent of industrial manufacturing and construction and demolition waste by 2020, a 70 per cent rate for that. There will be a provision to ensure that materials exported from the E.U. for recycling or reuse can only count towards recycling targets if it can be demonstrated that the reuse or recycling operation took place under conditions that are equivalent to those in the E.U. It is proposed that there will be a phase-out by 2020 of the incineration or landfill of any waste that can be reused, recycled or composted. So, the E.U. is deciding that by 2020 waste that can be reused, recycled or composted should not be in incinerators. This is exactly the point that Deputy Duhamel has been talking about and he has suggested that we need to deal more effectively with waste before it goes into the incinerator, rather than just throwing it into the incinerator, just chucking everything in. Why do we want to proceed with this policy? Why would anyone want to back this policy, which is totally out of step with what the rest of Europe wants to achieve? Why would you do it? Why, Members, would you support this today when Europe is saying: "We, Europe, want to do something different to Jersey"? But they have not said that, of course; they have said: "We want to do what we want to do", but it is the exact opposite of Jersey. For all the Minister's protestations, surely even he must realise that this policy is totally flawed and we should really be reviewing this again as quickly as possible to come up with better solutions than this solution, which is appalling for the Island of Jersey. Incineration produces these toxins; it is going to produce this 3,000 tonnes of fly ash. It may be even more, I do not know, because we have not got any figures from Transport and Technical Services. Maybe the Minister will tell us, in his response, how many tonnes of ash and how many tonnes of fly ash he is currently having to deal with and what on earth he is doing with it. What is he going to do with all the ash and fly ash over the next 30 years? Because it is an ecological disaster, in my opinion, if we are going to bury 3,000 tonnes of fly ash per annum for the next 20 years. Where, I ask? The Minister has not got a back garden, I do not think, but maybe Members might volunteer their back gardens? I would not put any of this in my building sites, I can tell you. Someone is saying my building sites, no way is this stuff going within miles of my building sites.

Of course, test results on the ash and the fly ash, if Members disastrously take this forward test results on the ash and the fly ash should be public knowledge. We should know what is coming out of there, it should be tested and it should be available on T.T.S. websites for the public to see: "We are currently producing so many thousand tonnes of toxins. We have broken it down. These are all the toxins out of that 3,000 tonnes," breaking it down into whatever materials one would break it down into so that it can be seen. That is what other responsible incinerator operators are doing. That is what responsible incinerator operators are doing; they are keeping the public informed. This, Deputy Power said, is a 25-year decision. Absolutely correct; it is not for today, tomorrow, next year; a 25-year decision; Europe that way, Jersey that way; north and south almost. How can we justify this position? There really does need to be a will to move in a different direction, to look seriously at proper kerbside collections in every Parish. I think the Minister is looking at it. I do not know how much work has been done but even then there needs to be a promotion of home composting so we could take out an awful lot of waste through home composting. In the U.K. now, 27 per cent of households with gardens in 1997 were home composting. By 2005 it was up to 35 per cent home composting. Jersey, we need a proper program introduced. We need adverts in the newspapers saying: "Get your home composting kits. This is how you operate. This is how you carry out home composting." We could take a lot of the waste out of the stream. That could be done. Then, in the U.K., of the compostible material collected separately from households, as I said, most is collected from kerb-side or civic amenity sites, so they have got a lot of sites where you can drive your car there and put your waste directly into it. That is, again, something that we should be looking at here. The idea is to make recycling easy; it is not to make recycling difficult. The idea is to make recycling easy for the public so that they can fully sign-up to the whole system. When you get to home composting, that can be composted under correct conditions by T.T.S. They could, if they wanted to, introduce a full food waste composting system from homes. But they do not want to because they want to throw it into this great big beast called the incinerator, or Energy from Waste plant, whatever the heck you want to call it. They want to feed it and that is the mistake that we are all making in supporting this policy. T.T.S. can deal with waste if they want to, but they do not want to. They could deal with it properly in those conditions, or they could purchase an anaerobic digestion system for maybe £4 million or £5 million and that would deal with it effectively. That would deal with it effectively but they do not want to do that because they want to take you on the opposite path. They do not want to go the European route; they want to go the Jersey route because we are Jersey and we just do things differently to everybody else, do we not? We are going to and it is an environmental disaster, this policy, and I urge Members to chuck it out and to come back with something much better.

5. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity :

Well, Sir, anyone who is still listening to this debate will need psychiatric treatment, I think. [Laughter] I think it is fair to say, Sir, we have heard enough statistics. Can we get a little bit back to basics? I was quite surprised, when I became Connétable , how emotive a subject that waste is. Last week, in the Waterfront debate, we kept on hearing from certain Deputies: "We have lost touch with the electorate; we have lost touch with the people in the Island." Well, this is the one thing, Sir, that everyone in the Island uses on a daily basis. I must say I am pretty sure that most of the Members sitting here know on what day the refuse will be collected in their Parish, and I am pretty sure that if they do not, the wife will certainly inform them that it should have been put out by 7.30 a.m. because if they have not put it out by 7.30 a.m., that is when the refuse is collected at a certain part, and if it is not picked up, I can assure you the one thing that the Parish Hall will get is a phone call to say: "Do you realise I put my rubbish out at 7.30 a.m. and it has not been picked up? What is wrong? What is the problem?" Well, occasionally the refuse truck does have a few problems, but it is one of the things that most people want to be picked up. I must say, I had a Parish Assembly a few weeks ago - well, about 6 weeks ago - to look at recycling. I will be quite honest with you, I have a contract on my desk now which is waiting to be signed but I just feel that I cannot sign it until I have had my Parish Assembly on 17th July to inform my parishioners that there is a cost to recycling. I must say I am sure I will be supported, but it is now my duty to go back to that Assembly and get their permission to go forward. We hear of all sorts of things; environmental taxes are wonderful but we are, as ratepayers in certain Parishes, paying a tax to pay to recycle their own rubbish, so surely it must be right as the Connétable of that Parish and the parishioners to decide the way forward and the costs. I think it is fair to say most Constables try to keep their budgets as slim as possible. There are ways, maybe, in the forthcoming year where most Parishes will decide to go down a recycling way but the Constables may say, "Right, well, it is just going to cost but what we can do in our budget, we can shave a few thousand off this part of our budget to lighten the load on the recycling costs." I think that is frugal and I certainly hope, Sir, that all Parishes will go down that way but in a sensible and measured decision. Recycling is not cheap. It is the way forward, I agree, but what the parishioners want and most parishioners, I am sure, right across the Island, and ratepayers, is something that they know is reliable that will maybe move away their rubbish. I am saying, at my meeting the other day, yes, we do want to go down the recycling way; we do need an incinerator. I know there are people saying it is too big. Well, just for instance, say, come the end of the year, and it could be 3 weeks before the election, and Bellozanne would collapse. All of a sudden we have voted out this projet today. Is it not

wonderful? We have got nothing else planned, Sir; we only have this projet to vote on. I do appreciate there are a few Connétable s who have entered the States recently and did not vote on where the site to place the incinerator would be, compared to Bellozanne, and it is a big monster, if you want to call it that, but it is a thing that I would say, Sir, is essential to the Island, to every person who lives in this Island. I am not sure people worry where, once it has been put in the back of the dust cart, how it is treated. What their main thing is, Sir, is it is picked up regularly. They still want to have a weekly collection plus recycling, which will be once a month. They definitely do not want to go down what is happening in England: "Oh, well, we will do recycling this week, leave your other household rubbish for 2 weeks", and then we will find the countryside being littered with fly-tipping. You know, it is wonderful to hear all these people. Unfortunately, the Scrutiny Panel, if we gave them 10 years on this, Sir, they would never come up with the right solution because, unfortunately, they are dead right; every day there is something new. They will never come to a decision and we have to make a decision which we feel is for the benefit of all Islanders and will keep .. I tell you one way, which if you could get somebody to change this rule I would think it is a great one, get rid of sell-by date tickets because unfortunately the youngsters today, I have seen this, they go into their fridge and they look and say: "Oh, goodness me, it is 15th July and it is now 22nd. We cannot eat that; bin it." Now, if we could get some of the people to get rid of that, that would be a great move forward but nobody comes up with those sort of ideas, oh no. You know, we have got people; the Deputy of St. Brelade, goodness me, where does he come from? [Laughter] Well, Sir, I do wonder sometimes. I know he has a .. but to be fair, all I am trying to bring back to this debate is a bit of commonsense that everybody wants this. We all agree we do not like incineration but the thing is, we have a small Island. We do not have infill. It will cost to recycle but we are going to go that way and we will do more but these things take time and if we do not get .. listen, we are going to get to vote some time, maybe not today even, but once this vote is taken, we have got no alternative if we vote this projet out. We have got nothing to take over from Bellozanne. I think we have all agreed Bellozanne is well past its sell-by date, it is a health hazard, and it is a matter of time before it collapses and it is not usable. It is time for

responsible Members of this House to take a decision they may not be 100 per cent with, to consider the population of the Island in general, not just the few people who have some wonderful ideas on the way forward. I certainly will be supporting this projet, Sir, and I hope others likewise will do so. Thank you.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Before I call the next Member to speak, I wonder if I might just say, from the Chair, that the debate has been going on for quite a long time and this Assembly is unusual in the sense that no time limit is imposed on debates at all and the system only works because Members exercise self-restraint in the length of time for which they speak. I respectfully draw that to Members' attention so that they can bear it in mind in considering how long they should speak. Senator Routier.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

Could I, therefore, propose the closure motion, Sir, please? The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, you can give ..

Deputy P.N. Troy :

Not on spending £105 million, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, you can give notice, Senator, if that is what you want to do? Senator Routier.

6. Senator P.F. Routier:

I will try and be as brief as I possibly can but I think I was right, leading up to this debate, we were going to approach it with a sense of trepidation because I thought we would be heading for a debate where Members would be faced with the Minister and his department saying one thing and the Scrutiny team saying something else. I think we have got a flavour of that on the Sunday airwaves, when some people listened to it twice - which amazed me - but fortunately my Sunday was brightened up by Wimbledon. We had a really good, lengthy Wimbledon final. I think this is turning in to be one of those occasions, having a lengthy debate. So, this debate has turned into Members having to decide whether to accept the information we have been provided by either or both sets of technical advisers, those helping the Minister or the advisers helping Scrutiny. It will come down to Members, like me, with little or no particular technical expertise to try and make sense of all of this. I have now attended several presentations on the subject of recycling and incineration and also carried out my own research to try and help me to make an appropriate decision for Jersey. I have now heard the Scrutiny Panel's advisers twice and I really found Monday's meeting very useful because we were able to get down to some of the real questions that I needed answering. Having had the Scrutiny advisers' report and the department's report and briefing papers, I think I have come to the conclusion that they are both saying something very similar. They are saying similar things and it is really the assumptions about recycling rates; the number of households and whether food waste can be recycled. I also wanted to know about any health hazards for the new plant. So, the first question for me was - as the consultants called the plant an incinerator, which everybody seems to be calling it - is it the right type of plant for Jersey? Well, the Scrutiny Panel's advisers, their comment was it is not wrong. We then went on to talk about the size of the plant and the appropriate tonnage and how the 2 streams would operate. With regard to the size and appropriate tonnage throughput, I think their most telling comment was: "Well, we are talking about futurology; we are guessing." One of the consultants, when asked: "What is an appropriate recycling target?" said they were not competent to comment about a suitable target for Jersey; it was for our community to decide how much they wanted to go down the route of recycling the more difficult costly items. I had it confirmed on Monday that there are some recyclables that we could sell and get more than it would cost to burn. Then there are also items that would be cost neutral to either recycle or burn and that there are items that it would be more cost effective to burn. I accept that we have a duty to the world and ourselves to recycle as much as possible. As the consultants mentioned on Monday, plastics can be recycled but, environmentally, it is becoming questionable. It really does not stack-up much now and it costs more to recycle plastic. It is obviously better to use less plastic than to recycle and that is probably what we should be considering and we should be really focussing on. In general, although there are a few exceptions, we were told that the cheapest way to deal with waste was to landfill, which we do not want to do and it is not appropriate for us to do that. So that is followed by incineration and then recycling. Recycling is not cheap and I will take that into consideration when I vote. As someone who has a particular interest in social issues, if I was asked to prioritise, to say how I would spend £1 million, and I had to choose between recycling or providing funds for perhaps long-term care for the elderly, I know what I would choose. I would choose long-term care for the elderly. My understanding is that one of the main considerations which are in contention is the viability of being able to recycle food waste and to take this out of the incineration streams. This is something I have been interested in for some time and, on the face of it, when I heard the presentations, I think it was last year at the R.J.A. and H.S. (Royal Jersey Agricultural and Horticultural Society), where it was shown that it has happened in some areas in the U.K., I did think it was a particularly good option. Since then, I have inquired whether our own local farmers were prepared to have recycled food waste on their land and I am told that the protocols placed on them by the buyers of their produce would not permit that to happen. So, the question for us is: are we prepared to risk the quality and the good name of our Jersey Royal? I think that is what really sealed it for me was on Monday when the Scrutiny adviser described the difficulty of ensuring the collection of uncontaminated food waste. He described the possibility of shredding what was supposed to be good clean food waste but there being batteries shredded in amongst the food. With

the best will in the world, I do not believe that the whole population in all areas of the Island will be prepared to go to the lengths that many of us, including myself, would be prepared to do in separating our waste. So, reluctantly, I do not believe that we should put at risk our commercial crops in the vain hope that we can encourage the very stringent separation of food waste that would be required. There is a big difference between environmentally aware people wanting to separate everything and those who would be prepared to do it. Over the weekend I heard some concerns aired about the possible health problems that could be caused to those living near to the proposed plant. I do have a particular interest in that, being the Member who lives nearest the proposed plant, so I would really want to have a reassurance that there were no health problems to be associated with that plant. So, I took the opportunity to ask about those health concerns. I know perhaps experts on incinerators are probably not the best people to speak to, but certainly I took the opportunity to ask them that question. So, I was told that if the supplier of the plant followed current E.U. guidelines, then there would not be a health problem. I do hope that perhaps if the Minister for Health and Social Services makes a comment if there are any particular health problems that he is concerned about. So, after a great deal of thought and research, I have to say, with assistance from the Scrutiny advisers and others, I think that, subject to health concerns being covered, I will be supporting this proposition. I do still have a great deal of concern about the visual aspect of the project and I will urge the Minister for Planning and Environment to use his initiative in finding ways to mask the building, especially to the east. The States have been considering this matter for many years now and we are facing a collapsing existing plant, we are facing increased prices and the difficulty of exchange rates if we were not to go ahead with it, because we have a deal on the table and there is a seller's market at the present time. I do not believe that we can put this off any longer. Even though I do have some concerns about the visual aspects, I believe we have a duty to face up to the reality that this project must go ahead, so I urge

Members to support the proposition.

7. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier :

When we debated the Solid Waste Strategy in 2005, I thought we had a way forward for the Island in terms of waste management for the next 25 years. Listening to the presentations over the past few months, it was apparent to me that the Minister for Transport and Technical Services had investigated the many different technologies and was recommending a good solution, but I was concerned when the Environment Scrutiny Panel brought their advisers to the Island and presented to the public in April of this year. Since that time, I have attended many further presentations and listened carefully to the pros and cons of the alternatives. What has become clear to me is that the Island needs the right solution that is a wise investment and, above all, provides us with a reliable and safe solution for waste management. I represent St. Helier No. 3 and 4 District which, of course, includes Bellozanne Valley. Bellozanne Valley might have been the ideal location for a sewerage works  and the  incinerators in the 1960s,  1970s and early 1980s  because there was relatively small development in the area. Life has changed at Bellozanne and it is now a heavily populated residential area with 3 schools nearby. Our children and people living in the area are entitled to a good and decent way of life and should not be living under the threat of a dirty old incinerator. I was shocked to find out, from Transport and Technical Services, that the Bellozanne incinerator exhaust emissions are the dirtiest in Europe. The Bellozanne incinerator would have been closed down in 1996 if we had been in the European Union. Sir, enough is enough. How much longer can we go on? The decision has to be made today. As a representative for the Bellozanne area, I want to go home tonight and be able to tell everyone that the end of the old incinerator is in sight; we have a decision and it is just a case of getting on and building the new plant. I attended the presentations from Transport and Technical Services last year when we were considering Bellozanne and La Collette as a preferred location. The old plant has a significant impact on the majority of the Island, whereas the new plant at La Collette will be a clean, well- controlled and regulated facility which not only meets E.U. limits, but vastly exceeds them. In other words, residents of La Collette will have a greatly improved air quality than they have at

present, from the Bellozanne emissions. If anyone is thinking about health, do not think of the impact of the new plant; think instead of the impact that the emissions from the existing plant are having on people living nearby and also throughout the Island. Then think again about the impact on people's health if we delay making a decision and lose yet another day, month or year. I was on the Committee in 2003 when, under Deputy Dubras' presidency, there was a decision about how to move forward with a strategy as we were getting bogged down with all of these new technologies. I believe, since that time, there has been more than a thorough evaluation of all technologies and it is time to accept that if we are to approve a new plant, it has to be robust, reliable and have a proven track record. Certainly there are many other technologies out there but, Sir, remember there is no alternative for Jersey if we get it wrong. The Committee set guidelines for the department; any plant had to have at least 2 reference plants operating for 2 years on a commercial scale on the same type of waste. Some will say that we should go for a new technology that is claimed to cost far less. I have recently heard a figure as low as £35 million. Well, maybe they do exist but are they proven? Do they pass our test and that these have operated 2 plants for 2 years? Some have suggested a high risk approach by using one of these technologies. If they are as good as they claim to be, why are they not being built everywhere in Europe and incinerator manufacturers not going out of business because their plants are old technology, as described by some? I for one am not going to agree to invest vast sums of public money in a plant unless I am satisfied that it is going to work for the next 25 years. I believe the proposal being put forward by Transport and Technical Services is proven. It is reliable and will serve the Island for many, many years. I want to know that we have invested in something that will serve this Island well. I am not going to take a risk with something that is not proven. I do have a concern about the size of the plant and what it will look like at La Collette. Personally, I think we made the right decision by moving it from Bellozanne to La Collette. After all, La Collette is and, from what I have heard, will remain predominantly as an industrial area. Where better to put the plant, next to the J.E.C., when many of the services can be shared? The chimney, especially, is a huge benefit as the Island will only have one big industrial chimney. That has to be an advantage. I have heard many arguments about La Collette. Is it safe being near the fuel farm, for instance? I am satisfied that having employed the same experts that prepared the reports on the Buncefield disaster to review La Collette, we have the certainty we need to proceed with this development. I am also very pleased to see that, having reviewed the risks associated with the fuel farm, there is now a group representing all organisations that are looking very carefully at the future of the fuel farm and any future development for the entire area. Perhaps for once there really is a bit of joined-up government going on. Sir, much of the debate will focus on recycling and the capacity of the Energy from Waste plant. I, for one, was very unhappy about the original 32 per cent recycling target. I thought we could do much better. I was not too happy either, when the Minister for Transport and Technical Services amended the increase to 36 per cent. Again, I thought we could do better. My view was that we should have set a target of approximately 50 per cent; the same as the U.K. and the European Union and, to some degree that is still my view but I have listened to the arguments over the past few weeks and can see that to reach anything like 50 per cent, we will have to treat food waste separately. What has become apparent to me and was particularly enlightening was when I saw the presentation that showed the increase in the amount we have to recycle to get from where we are today to 36 per cent. The figures were quite staggering, effectively doubling the quantities we have to recycle. It is because we have to take the population increase into account and the number of new homes that are going to be built over the next 20 years; we have to set a target for recycling that we can meet as it is key for sizing the new plant. Time after time we have heard one argument for food waste to be composted or digested and then put on to the land from Scrutiny, and the counter argument being put forward by Transport and Technical Services saying that it is not a long term viable solution. From what I have heard, there does not appear to be any argument saying that the technology does not exist. The argument comes down to the land bank and the other materials that have to be applied to the land. When I heard of the competition for land between green waste compost, dairy industry slurry and thermally treated sewerage sludge, I realised that perhaps it was